Censoring White Supremacy
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-08-2017, 11:58 AM
RE: Censoring White Supremacy
(25-08-2017 11:10 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  If Google can discriminate, so too should be able to discriminate the corner bakery.

Of course they should. And as I said it first time round. The only ones they have to take it up with are their customers. There has been a case when some bakery went broke because of not making a cake for a gay couple.

That's the risk they're taking.

[Image: Labrador%20and%20Title.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2017, 12:08 PM
RE: Censoring White Supremacy
(25-08-2017 11:58 AM)abaris Wrote:  
(25-08-2017 11:10 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  Do


If Google can discriminate, so too should be able to discriminate the corner bakery.

Of course they should. And as I said it first time round. The only ones they have to take it up with are their customers. There has been a case when some bakery went broke because of not making a cake for a gay couple.

That's the risk they're taking.

Don't you just love it when the religious and economic right scream "FREE MARKET FREE MARKET" scream like whiny little bitches when the left says, "Ok, we can do that too."

They don't want small government, they don't even want a free market, they just want to be in control.

Poetry by Brian37(poems by an atheist) Also on Facebook as BrianJames Rational Poet and Twitter Brianrrs37
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2017, 12:20 PM
RE: Censoring White Supremacy
(25-08-2017 12:08 PM)Brian37 Wrote:  
(25-08-2017 11:58 AM)abaris Wrote:  Of course they should. And as I said it first time round. The only ones they have to take it up with are their customers. There has been a case when some bakery went broke because of not making a cake for a gay couple.

That's the risk they're taking.

Don't you just love it when the religious and economic right scream "FREE MARKET FREE MARKET" scream like whiny little bitches when the left says, "Ok, we can do that too."

They don't want small government, they don't even want a free market, they just want to be in control.

I think the objection in that case wasn't against people not wanting to shop there but court involvement. Court involvement being against the free market.
I don't know if the person went broke or not though, but they also received death threats and so on.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2017, 12:39 PM
RE: Censoring White Supremacy
(25-08-2017 11:10 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  
(25-08-2017 11:02 AM)BryanS Wrote:  I don't think that it is a good analogy. Companies like Google are essentially content companies--the product they offer is the display of content. In my view, this makes the issues surrounding companies like Google a free speech issue for Google. By your logic, the New York Times or any publisher would not be able to exercise editorial control of what is in their papers--someone could buy ad space and use it to run conservative news stories criticizing the NY times, and the NY Times could do nothing to prevent that.

The message that a wedding cake communicates is incidental to the making of the cake, and I do not see cake baking as involving the same sort of free speech issues as a publisher or online content company.
I find it a very apt analogy.

If Google can discriminate, so too should be able to discriminate the corner bakery.

It's easy to find exceptions when a cause you agree with is the target.

That's the problem.

Except that in the case of the bakery, they are discriminating on the bases of who someone is (or some people are) inherent to their being- a homosexual couple, for example, or a person of color, or a woman- while the digital media platform is discriminating based on what someone does- spread hate speech and coordinate to further their fascist agenda.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2017, 12:42 PM
RE: Censoring White Supremacy
I can't help but think that if you start legalizing discrimination, whether it's against LGBTQ, women, or even white supremacists, you're opening the door back up to things like----restaurants saying "we don't serve blacks." "Or Mexicans. Or...whatever. We have some pretty strict fair housing laws that keep landlords from being able to refuse to rent to someone based on race, gender, etc. Which means that by law, a landlord can't say "I don't like the way you think, so you can't rent here." At properties the landlord owns.

I know of a restaurant that has a hand made sign that says something to the effect of "no cursing" and "if we can see your underwear, don't come in." They mean that whether it's a woman, man, black, white etc. Based on the owners it can go without saying that they wouldn't tolerate "hate speech" there either. And if that becomes a problem they won't hesitate to put up a sign forbidding it. That's imposing a standard of decency based on their morals. They don't try to regulate what you THINK or how you conduct yourself beyond their facility. Not cursing in a family facility is a standard I can (fucking) live with. Not having to see some thug's pants hanging off his ass with more underwear showing than not....well, that's something I appreciate. One could argue that whole free speech rights thing, but if the same person wants to stand on the sidewalk showing his underwear and ass and carry on a conversation filled with "fucks" and "goddamns" then as long as that person pulls up his pants and stops cursing, they'll let him in and sell him a hamburger. It's how they conduct themselves inside their establishment that they have a say over.

Where are we going and why am I in this hand basket?
"Life is not all lovely thorns and singing vultures, you know." ~ Morticia Addams
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes outtathereligioncloset's post
25-08-2017, 12:53 PM
RE: Censoring White Supremacy
(25-08-2017 12:39 PM)Emma Wrote:  Except that in the case of the bakery, they are discriminating on the bases of who someone is (or some people are) inherent to their being- a homosexual couple, for example, or a person of color, or a woman- while the digital media platform is discriminating based on what someone does- spread hate speech and coordinate to further their fascist agenda.

While I don't disagree with the differences you're pointing out, "hate speech" isn't a thing in the eyes of the law (as far as I'm aware). Neither is organizing (coordinating) to further your agenda (ideas) whatever they might be, as long as they aren't threatening anyone. We still have the right to organize and speak freely about most things without having to worry about being dragged away by men with guns (state sponsored anyway). Some people think fascism is the only way to go. They have the right to think that, say that and try to organize a political movement to that effect. So given these rights still exist (as much as we might not like the people with these views), why would it be okay for Google to discriminate and not the baker?

It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2017, 12:58 PM
RE: Censoring White Supremacy
(25-08-2017 11:10 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  
(25-08-2017 11:02 AM)BryanS Wrote:  I don't think that it is a good analogy. Companies like Google are essentially content companies--the product they offer is the display of content. In my view, this makes the issues surrounding companies like Google a free speech issue for Google. By your logic, the New York Times or any publisher would not be able to exercise editorial control of what is in their papers--someone could buy ad space and use it to run conservative news stories criticizing the NY times, and the NY Times could do nothing to prevent that.

The message that a wedding cake communicates is incidental to the making of the cake, and I do not see cake baking as involving the same sort of free speech issues as a publisher or online content company.
I find it a very apt analogy.

If Google can discriminate, so too should be able to discriminate the corner bakery.

It's easy to find exceptions when a cause you agree with is the target.

That's the problem.

Free speech rights matter here. I'm not taking a position based on political point of view on the content of the speech. I am taking a point of view on whether free speech is the controlling issue at hand.

Governments have the ability to regulate commerce, and governments at the state and federal levels have to varying degrees put in place regulations that prohibit businesses that conduct business with the public from discriminating.

Companies who sell content are different in their function. Their product is the message just as much as the physical (or virtual) platform they are selling. Cake bakers are not selling for profit the messages they write on their cakes--they are selling their cakes.

Google sells content. My comparison to the New York Times is more appropriate than comparing them to a cake baker. Free speech rights are an inherent requirement of any company that is selling content over other sorts of products.

There are well established legal precedents on this--a publisher can for instance publish hate filled material and their right to be hateful is protected by the first amendment. They can even decline to publish books based on the content of those books. But they cannot decline to hire an employee due to race, gender, or other protected class--employment law, falling under government's rights to regulate commerce would control there.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like BryanS's post
25-08-2017, 01:07 PM
RE: Censoring White Supremacy
(25-08-2017 12:58 PM)BryanS Wrote:  Google sells content. My comparison to the New York Times is more appropriate than comparing them to a cake baker. Free speech rights are an inherent requirement of any company that is selling content over other sorts of products.

No, it isn't. There's that thing called corporate identity. They, being a private business, only answering to their shareholders can decide freely which clients they're taking and if they fit their image. That's not censoring free speech. It's just the prerogative of not having to take on every client.

[Image: Labrador%20and%20Title.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2017, 01:12 PM
RE: Censoring White Supremacy
(25-08-2017 01:07 PM)abaris Wrote:  
(25-08-2017 12:58 PM)BryanS Wrote:  Google sells content. My comparison to the New York Times is more appropriate than comparing them to a cake baker. Free speech rights are an inherent requirement of any company that is selling content over other sorts of products.

No, it isn't. There's that thing called corporate identity. They, being a private business, only answering to their shareholders can decide freely which clients they're taking and if they fit their image. That's not censoring free speech. It's just the prerogative of not having to take on every client.

I am arguing that what Google allows or not on their site is not in my view a form of censorship--I state this very clearly upthread. I am arguing for Google's free speech rights to deny displaying content on their platform.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2017, 01:14 PM
RE: Censoring White Supremacy
(25-08-2017 01:12 PM)BryanS Wrote:  
(25-08-2017 01:07 PM)abaris Wrote:  No, it isn't. There's that thing called corporate identity. They, being a private business, only answering to their shareholders can decide freely which clients they're taking and if they fit their image. That's not censoring free speech. It's just the prerogative of not having to take on every client.

I am arguing that what Google allows or not on their site is not in my view a form of censorship--I state this very clearly upthread. I am arguing for Google's free speech rights to deny displaying content on their platform.

OK, I misunderstood you then.

[Image: Labrador%20and%20Title.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: