The radical left agrees with you but for different reasons.
I was hoping we could get ahead of this before liberals took control of the narrative but the window appears to be closing.
I was never demanding government intervention. Frankly, I really don't know how to balance the rights of private social media companies and the demands of the left to take control of them and run them by their standards.
What I do know is if we as Republicans and Conservatives keep insisting these social media companies can run their businesses as they see fit the radical left will be sure these businesses run them according to their rules.
Again, I'm not asking for government control but if we don't speak up the radical left will and we will be shut out.
imho.
The only online harassment I hear about these days is against conservatives. Until just being human means harassment is wrong, these two idiot authors can stick it.
Let me fix that.
Kristen Clarke and David Brody are virulent anti-conservative, anti-white-male bigots who celebrate their own intolerance and bigotry.
I understand your fears. But ANY infringements, for any stated reason, regardless of wording, would be turned against freedom. History is littered with “legislated fairness” that leads to evil.
Like it or not, anything legislated that requires fairness or gets to rule on what is hate or fact or fake will ultimately boil down to who has the power to interpret what is acceptable and what is not.
You want government to control Facebook and Google and whether they can pick and choose acceptable content? Then the government needs to take them over and make it part of the Public Broadcast System. Is that the direction we want to go? It’s all about precedence.
Remember the days before Fox Television and Conservative Talk Radio? A new market and competition sprung up. Let freedom fix the problem. Now, where are the alternatives to Facebook and Google?
Leftards - creating problems in search of solutions.
Frankly, I really don’t know how to balance the rights of private social media companies and the demands of the left to take control of them and run them by their standards.
________________________________________________________
I do...look to the 1st Amendment. Can the Left censor POLITICAL speech simply because it might lead to someone getting hurt in any way?
The classification of political speech as HATE speech is a tactic used by Leftists to crush their opponents. People on the political Right have moments of weakness where they by into the whole hate speech censorship movement. Just ask yourself a simple question: Does the prosecution of so-called hate speech cause more injustice than it prevents? Unless you are a complete and hopeless Leftard, you will answer “Yes!”.
“Today’s white supremacist and neo-Nazi social media trolls have much in common with the angry mobs that beat civil rights activists at lunch counters, defaced houses of worship, and stood in the schoolhouse door. Both then and now, these hateful forces sought to disenfranchise and exclude minorities and women from modern society.”
They have so much in common because they were and are just extensions of the Democratic party.
Obviously they have no intention of suppressing hate against WHITES/Christians, but plan to encourage it. Also, anything a White/Christian says or does, or doesn’t say or doesn’t do will be called hate speech.
>>social media trolls have much in common with the angry mobs that beat civil rights activists at lunch counters, defaced houses of worship,...
How queer, it was the BLM types who were harassing diners in NYC a year or two ago and these days are harassing or evicting Trump administration staffers and supporters.
There have been genuine attacks on churches by ‘satanists’ and antichristian dnc brownshirts. The antisemtic cases we heard about last year were by a guy online in Israel and many of the mosque attacks have be selfinflicted acts of vandalism by muslims.
Sexual deviances are not immutable characteristics.
The rule should align with the law. Legal or illegal.
Legal-do nothing
Illegal-report to the police
That would be free speech
If they were honest about banning offensive speech, the internet would shrink to nothing.
But only conservatives get banned, the LEFT does not.
NYT opinion writers should be allowed to post whatever they want, no matter how hateful I think it is. I’d rather know what they think than just see those polished DNC talking points the paper publishes.
If a few neo-Nazis also post hatred, so what? If anyone hires those neo-Nazis I’ll lose respect for them just like I do for the NYT. If some idiots think I’m a neo-Nazi because I voted for Trump and so did a neo-Nazi, that’s evidence we need to improve our schools, not that we need to “fix” the internet.
People with specific disorders (i.e. Jim Acosta) should be advised by their doctor to stay off the internet. But it’s not the government’s business to protect them from butthurt which is a well-known problem for people with those mental disorders.
It appears authors Clarke and Brody disapprove of the New York Times recently hiring the Internet hatemonger.
Or is there something more here?
I didn’t have to read the bylines to know that this crap was written by two lawyers. Nobody else could possibly put together such a pile of illogical, disconnected slop.
Hateful trolls promote and incite real-world hate crimes as well, causing their targets to live in fear for their safety. .......................................... Sound like Mad Maxine to me. ????
Unless they all want to conclude that private businesses and private people can discriminate for any reason they choose; the only rule is that there can be no rules. The left created this catch 22 and is about to experience it. The road to Hell has always been paved with “good intentions”...
The Left continues its push for “Thought Crime” laws.
The 1st Amendment protects the right to peacefully assemble. One of the ways The People assemble is for the exchange of goods and services. And just as one has the right to NOT participate in a particular speech, one also has the right to NOT participate in a particular exchange of goods and services.
If I dont want to sell to you FOR ANY REASON, the 1st amendment protects that right. Public accommodation laws in direct contradiction to this right.
Only in the warped mind of a liberal would government oppression be considered a civil right
What about my civil rights as a conservative? Where is my civil right to embrace the 1st and 2nd amendments? To not be banned, to not have my commerce be blocked, to not be denied service at a store, shop, or restaurant?