Twitch suspends Trump campaign account...

[Mr. Shickadance]

Where is @Madmick defending their right as a privately owned business to stop anyone they feel from using their services?

 

[Hadron90]

So what?

Seriously, so what?

A bunch of corporations coordinate to remove content that they all find objectionable. No one gets arrested, loses any rights, etc. Without government action, I'm not sure what your issue is. You want laws saying that these private business built around speech should have the government step in and regulate the business's speech? I don't see how that aligns with 1st Amendment principles of free speech.

It is a removal of rights. What good is the first amendment if its impossible to use in practice? We have no freedom of speech on what are by-far the most common forms of medium in our lives. Yes, I do think the government should regulate the business's speech, in similar fashion to how the Supreme Court ruled that you don't forfeit your constitutional rights when living in a company town. No one had the foresight to see what communication and technology would evolve when the Constitution is written. Placing restrictions the ability of massive corporations to censor citizens is keeping with its spirit.

Or are we now saying that the people who run platforms like Twitter or Twitch don't get free speech protection in how they run their businesses? Does this extend to every business where people can post opinions - say Yelp or Amazon reviews as well? Where exactly does your desire to regulate speech end?

Yes. I'm proposing that we craft some regulations on this. We have books upon books of federal regulations, so that's nothing new.

 

[panamaican]

It is a removal of rights. What good is the first amendment if its impossible to use in practice? We have no freedom of speech on what are by-far the most common forms of medium in our lives. Yes, I do think the government should regulate the business's speech, in similar fashion to how the Supreme Court ruled that you don't forfeit your constitutional rights when living in a company town. No one had the foresight to see what communication and technology would evolve when the Constitution is written. Placing restrictions the ability of massive corporations to censor citizens is keeping with its spirit.

There's no removal of rights when there isn't a government actor. Seriously, all of you should understand this before talking about rights. It being the foundation of the Constitution and all.

Yes. I'm proposing that we craft some regulations on this. We have books upon books of federal regulations, so that's nothing new.

Yeah, sorry see the above.

 

[Holic]

If Biden is doing so well in the polls, why is there a need to censor the Trump campaign?

 

[Madmick]

Where is @Madmick defending their right as a privately owned business to stop anyone they feel from using their services?

I've never argued against that, but I also think it becomes a bit more problematic regarding coverage of political campaigns.

 

[nac386]

Rather than "they're censuring right-wing positions", are you saying that Reddit's claim that these various subreddits and/or users kept violating rules despite attempts to talk to them isn't true?

Admittedly, I side with the platform there because we see enough repeat offenders on this site that I'm pretty comfortable saying that the problem users rarely respond to polite requests to stop doing whatever problem behavior they're doing.

On this site, where you basically have to be a repeat offender at an antagonistic level to get banned, what percentage of banned war room accounts would you estimate are right wing vs left wing?

 

[I am your real dad]

You mean "libel"?

There is nothing about the actions that the tech companies did that actually libeled Trump.

It's funny that Trump even tries taking this hard line, since his opinion on Internet censorship was way different but no less technically incorrect back during the 2016 campaign.


Go do some research and come back to this thread when you have a clue.

Yes that's what I meant. I misspelled it.

They make THEMSELVES libel. By censoring their platform they become a publisher.

You might need to do some research of your own. I can't believe you don't know this.
Its been in the news for 6 months!

 

[Natural Order]

It's not mental gymnastics. It is correctly pointing out that private companies are not regulated by the 1st in the way that the State is.

This is not a Constitutional issue. There is no free speech violation. No private institution is required to give everyone a platform, and they can certainly institute their own guidelines for using their platform.

This has been discussed numerous times and really doesn't need another poorly thought out thread about it.

Why are they regulated on who they hire?

 

[Mr. Shickadance]

I've never argued against that, but I also think it becomes a bit more problematic regarding coverage of political campaigns.

Yeah same with Facebook censorship right!!

In my opinion, businesses have every damn right to refuse service to anyone for any reason they please which doesn't violate federal or state law.

They have absolute authority over their dress codes, and how they choose to exercise them.

Sure, though it depends on the nature of the censorship.

 

[I am your real dad]

If they're a publisher that just means they'll ban more of you idiots.

I realize this.

But another platform will probably pop up where people can enjoy freedom of speech and exchange ideas.

 

[panamaican]

On this site, where you basically have to be a repeat offender at an antagonistic level to get banned, what percentage of banned war room accounts would you estimate are right wing vs left wing?

Oh, I can't get into that. Some posters get very sensitive about defending repeat offenders. Habitual line steppers. But you can always take a gander at who's been banned and draw your own conclusions.

 

[Halge]

Side note: Stefan Molyneux was just banned from Youtube. Is anyone going to pretend this isn't an order 66?

 

[Hadron90]

There's no removal of rights when there isn't a government actor. Seriously, all of you should understand this before talking about rights. It being the foundation of the Constitution and all.

Absolutely there is. Rights are innate to individuals, bestowed by our creator. The Constitution limits the power of the government to infringe on those rights. Government isn't the only entity capable of infringing upon a right.

 

[Hadron90]

I realize this.

But another platform will probably pop up where people can enjoy freedom of speech and exchange ideas.

Payment processors deny service to them. 4chan only takes bitcoin because Paypal and every other service refuses to do business with them.

 

[I am your real dad]

Payment processors deny service to them. 4chan only takes bitcoin because Paypal and every other service refuses to do business with them.

There is bitchute and a bunch of others.

There is always a way around the liberal elites socialist monopolies.

 

[panamaican]

Absolutely there is. Rights are innate to individuals, bestowed by our creator. The Constitution limits the power of the government to infringe on those rights. Government isn't the only entity capable of infringing upon a right.

Oh, that's interesting. The people who run Twitch and Twitter and stuff, do they have rights?

 

[TUFNewb]

Payment processors deny service to them. 4chan only takes bitcoin because Paypal and every other service refuses to do business with them.

Major advertisers will also avoid them like the coronavirus. Facebook is even too conservative for their target demographic, hence the exodus these last two weeks or so.

 

[Hadron90]

Oh, that's interesting. The people who run Twitch and Twitter and stuff, do they have rights?

The people do. The companies should not have the rights to infringe on the individuals though. Just as you, the individual, have freedom of association and can refuse to allow any black visitors to your home. You would not be allowed to deny people access to your business on the basis that they are black, however. The federal code of regulations places a mountain of restrictions on how companies can operate. Why not a few more entries?

 

[Big Brain]

There's no removal of rights when there isn't a government actor. Seriously, all of you should understand this before talking about rights. It being the foundation of the Constitution and all.


Yeah, sorry see the above.

there is a government actor...depending on how you define "government"

 

[Rational Poster]

I realize this.

But another platform will probably pop up where people can enjoy freedom of speech and exchange ideas.

None of them will be able to do that if they're legally responsible for the content they put out.