you're not worried that the restaurant is forced to serve her food?

public or private, the question - for us itt - is whether I (or you) approve of the entity's conduct, and why

LB - I feel like you portray yourself, maybe believe yourself, to be above/outside the liberal/conservative divide

yet you consistently go to bat for the conservative position, and ~never for the liberal


are you willing to admit that you are really a conservative, or at least more sympathetic to that camp?

I don’t think so. It’s just an idea I’ve either read, seen, discussed, or thought of.

Internet law is so far behind what is actually happening, we have to understand that the new “public forum” isn’t a park or street corner that is controlled by the government anymore as when the laws were written but the internet. Which is why the internet should be regulated as something like a public accommodation or utility.

Sites that charge money for membership should be free to do whatever they wish but free sites should maybe fall under public accommodation regulations. (Which would still allow for political censorship as is).

Once we determine if they are public accommodations then the discussion of upholding first amendment rights could maybe come in. I think it’s obviously a much smaller step to extend PA rules to internet sites than it is to extend first amendment protections to private businesses.

While ultimately I do believe Facebook twitter and the like should have a duty to uphold first amendment protection to their users I don’t think we could ever make them other than through using the power of being consumers to force them into agreeing to it themselves.

I am a conservative and I am perfectly fine with private companies banning whoever the **** they want /5c

Also, Alex Jones is not a conservative.

Non sequiter!

Damn that was a lot of posts

I don't really think he should be censored or that nfl players should be banned from kneeling but I'm ok with both as well. Or Kathy Griffin censored. Most other people as well.


Looks like slighted had some good posts on the subject.

I may be for getting rid of shadow banning. At least be a man and say you're banning people.

I think the liberal position would be having these public platforms free from ideological influence in how they operate.

I do admit I am a bit sad we won’t see more hilarious stuff like this:

Zuckerberg runs for president in 2020. He puts get out and vote messages only on likely Zuckerberg voter pages. Do we allow this? Is public outa6ge the only thing stopping it?

Don't think anyone thinks it's good or right, right?

Alex Jones is a performance artist, not a political commentator. (The source for this is Alex Jones, under oath on a witness stand).

Should Fox News be required to give Dane Cook all the air time he wants?

Depends on if the food is considered art

You don't think msm journalists aren't knowingly pushing bs in many cases? Really?

I'm for whichever position promotes freedom. You see the Alex Jones situation as him breaking the rules and deserving to be banned, but do you really think he broke the rules on all Internet platforms simultaneously? There was no event that just happened. No new parkland or sandy hook.

Instead it was a coordinated effort to go after him using the pretext that he broke rules--and I think you know that.

These companies like facebook/etc are clearly tied into the power structure and Jones is arguing against that. That is why he was banned.

Apparently he was banned for hate speech, which is poorly defined but a different thing for sure.

Instead of promoting false information.

Let's see some quotes then

"Hate speech*is speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as*race,*religion,*ethnic origin,*national origin,*sex,*disability,*sexual orientation, or*gender identity.*The law of some countries describes hate speech as speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display that incites violence or prejudicial action against a protected group or individual on the basis of their membership of the group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected group, or individual on the basis of their membership of the group.*"

Jones*frequently*targets*the transgender community on his show, often using slurs to refer to transgender folks, dehumanizing their existence, and spreading vile rhetoric about them. He once*claimedthat transgender women may be gay men who want to “go pick up more guys” by getting “breast implants” and trying to “doll [their] hair up,” and he has also*said*that being*transgender and having a baby is like him deciding that he is a “50-foot, red, purple, striped giraffe” that “give[s] birth to leprechauns.” In other segments, Jones has*said*that accepting transgender people is a slippery slope to “brain chips” and,*on*multiple occasions, he has tried to disparage former first lady Michelle Obama by saying she is transgender and may have committed murder to cover it up.

He also used tranny sometimes.

That didn't format well. Can't find as much info on what he said about Muslims.

I feel like this is something that we would need to see in context.

I agree you shouldn't use tranny (unless you're a mechanic)

if this is what you think, then you either aren't reading or aren't understanding what everybody has been saying to you

Tucker Carlson hasn't been banned; nor Sean Hannity, nor Rush Limbaugh, nor Herman Cain

this isn't an ideological issue

it is, as far as I care, a journalistic one, insofar as social media is assuming the mantle of the fourth estate


pwns thinks its based on hate speech, and if so, all the more distinct from (socially acceptable) political ideology

Do you think msm journalists are by-and-large reporting facts they either know not to be true or have no basis for reporting?


I'm not talking about conclusions or editorials - I'm talking about fact-reporting.

it's his platform, isn't it?


Slighted - I reviewed the public accommodation provisions of the civil rights act, and while I think they could (and should) be expanded to include online services and additional protected classes, I don't think the application really fits with the issue here. Facebook should probably be prohibited from blocking posts by muslims, eg, but not con artists or serial libelists.

I don't know, is it?!?!?

What about con artist Muslims?

pwns, when did facebook become de facto nationalized iyo?