Posted on 03/05/2021 1:36:58 PM PST by Texan4Life
Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
That is an out and out lie. They are doing exactly that. They are no longer content to relentlessly push their own viewpoints, they are striking at the ability of others to ever have a voice.
They were contracted for a service and unilaterally broke that contract in order to stop speech. It is the acme of stupid to claim that is not what they are doing.
This is why no one takes libertarians seriously: stupidly esoteric positions based on taking a good principle to suicidal extremes.
The contract said the tech company could do pretty much whatever they wanted to the user’s posts. Did you ever read the TOS of one of those services?
...stupidly esoteric positions based on taking a good principle to suicidal extremes.
It isn’t just principle, it’s the Constitution. The 1st Amendment says the government can’t interfere with your speech and that’s exactly what Abbott’s trying to have TX do. The 1st applies to the techs too and they have the right to choose what speech they want to promote.
You have the right to speak, not the right to speak anywhere you want on anyone’s private property. Not to mention that only the government has the ability to stop you from speaking. Twitter can’t keep you from saying anything you want right here, but TX can by jailing you.
Maybe you missed what AWS did to Parler?
What happens when the power company decides not to sell you electricity for your servers because they don't like what you are saying? What happens when your grocery store decides not to sell you food because they don't like your opinion?
There is a reason why companies providing a public service that can't be easily replaced are held to a different standard. You don't hash out political differences in a cancel culture environment. You can't even have political differences.
The techs aren't promoting anything by letting someone post, they are colluding to suppress political viewpoints by suddenly deciding what viewpoints are allowed and which aren't. Once again, they aren't just doing this to individuals, they have become a de facto part of the most radical wing of the democratic party oppressing anything remotely political they disagree with.
You have someone taking a flamethrower to your house, but because they are standing on the sidewalk you think they are within their rights to burn your house down.
No, I saw it. Parler's mistake was not negotiating a contract with AWS with the protections they wanted. It's quite possible AWS would have said no to those requests but Parler could then have gone to one of a dozen other hosting sites.
There is a reason why companies providing a public service that can't be easily replaced are held to a different standard.
That's the heart of our disagreement. None of the techs are public services. They're privately owned commercial information services. If you want the government to seize them for the public good, fine, but be prepared to pay their shareholders huge amounts of tax money for confiscating their private property.
The techs aren't promoting anything by letting someone post, they are colluding to suppress political viewpoints by suddenly deciding what viewpoints are allowed and which aren't.
If I invite someone into my home, restaurant or internet forum I retain the right to kick them out if they act in a way I don't like. A private company colluding to suppress political viewpoints may be cowardly but it's not illegal.
...they have become a de facto part of the most radical wing of the democratic party oppressing anything remotely political they disagree with.
As is their right.
You have someone taking a flamethrower to your house, but because they are standing on the sidewalk you think they are within their rights to burn your house down.
That may be the most off-point metaphor I've heard.
Are you saying FB is attacking you (taking a flamethrower to your house) because they have limits on what you can do on their free service?
None of the techs are public services. They're privately owned commercial information services.
They are publicly traded and the general public uses their services.
I retain the right to kick them out if they act in a way I don't like.
And you claim I am using off-point metaphors? You think a publicly traded company offering services to the public working to enforce a one party state is the moral and legal equivalent of someone insulting your carpet color?
As is their right.
This is why the left controls every institution: They engage in non-stop political warfare. Most of the right, on the other hand not only refuses to resist, but acts like the left's dog when they get home from work. Put your tongue back in your mouth and stop licking their boots. In any other industry, yanking the rug out from under your customers like this will get you into hot water because it is by its very nature a fraudulent business practice.
Are you saying FB is attacking you (taking a flamethrower to your house) because they have limits on what you can do on their free service?
Once again, you are either intentionally missing the point or simply can't grasp the big picture. This is not about any one person's posts. It is about every single big tech company working in unison to deprive half the country of its political voice.
It isn't just politics as usual, it is the end of politics and the birth of the one party state.
Publicly traded just means individuals can buy stock in their company. They're not owned by "the public" like a taxpayer owned entity.
You think a publicly traded company offering services to the public working to enforce a one party state is the moral and legal equivalent of someone insulting your carpet color?
They're private actors with property rights. With very few exceptions (race, creed, age and sex) they can legally discriminate against anyone or anything they like, just as I can in my home.
In any other industry, yanking the rug out from under your customers like this will get you into hot water because it is by its very nature a fraudulent business practice.
Where's the fraud?
It is about every single big tech company working in unison to deprive half the country of its political voice.
Whether or not they're all working against your political ideology is interesting but not relevant. They're private companies, just like FR, and can be as politically biased as they like.
You just want the government to intervene on your behalf because these bad companies are being mean to you.
That's not a legitimate role for government. Get back to me when they break the law.
“The question is can the government force a private entity like Twitter to publish speech they don’t agree with.”
Hmmm, I don’t know...Can they force them to bake a cake?
Good question. It depends on the law.
The US has civil rights laws that prevent businesses from discriminating on the basis of race, sex, age, religion or disabilities. Some states also protect sexual orientation. So it depends on why you don't want to bake the cake.
No state, and definitely not the federal government, bars discrimination based on political ideology. If you want to do that you'll need to update the civil rights laws.
Big tech should be treated like the utilities. They are nothing like “Joe’s Restaurant”. And comparing them to your house is just absurd.
No one (except you) would think it was ok for a utility to cut off someone’s power because of their politics.
For that matter FR is thick with DU trolls and they aren’t banned unless they cross the same lines that get anyone tossed. And those rules are clearly spelled out up front, not arbitrarily applied to one person but not another as a matter of policy.
So my rights are dependent on my intentions? And here I thought they were granted by God himself and were inalienable.
The point is, as it stands now, private property means nothing to the government. If you are “in public” I guess your freedom of Association is curbed? If I have Freedom of Asssociation, then I can discriminate all I want, in theory. But that is not the case. The point that I am making is that at this time the Left determines how the Constitution is followed.
For better or worse, they are. If you're trying to discriminate on the basis of religion, race, sex or disability the civil rights laws are against you. Discrimination based on politics isn't protected by law.
I guess my point is that I do not agree with the sentiment that my intentions matter. My rights are my rights, according to the Constitution. You may agree with that and believe it is ok, but those of us who want to adhere to Constitutional principles do not.
I truly understand that position and wish that's the way it was but in our collective wisdom as a democratic republic we've passed civil rights laws saying intentions do matter in some cases.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.