Social WR Lounge v247: I ain't no sexy boy. I don't dance, son.

Status
Not open for further replies.
It goes to precedent on the subject of government limiting the free speech of businesses in favor of a greater good. What's a better one?

You're going to have to elaborate on that one. Disparate treatment in public accommodations isn't a free speech concern (Heart of Atlanta Motel vs. US & Katzenbach vs. McClung). It's primarily an issue of interstate commerce, which racial discrimination absolutely affects. To the point that we had special books that told us where we could and couldn't go while travelling. There's no earthly way you can parlay that into a free speech concern, especially when you're discussing public accommodations. If you're open to one person, you're open to everyone. If you want to discriminate, don't be open to everyone.

In fact, the Civil Rights Movement served as one of the most forward advancements of 1st amendment rights via the Sullivan cases and Shuttlesworth vs Birmingham. The first step to removing Section 230 and enforcing the government restrictions on speech that you're talking about, you would need to invalidate New York Times vs Sullivan, which would decimate free speech protections in the country, especially with regard to libel. That's why Clarence Thomas making his dumb opinion to invalidate Sullivan was alarming. The path you're going down is a destruction of 1st amendment rights, not a strengthening of them.
 
Has it ever happened? More than once, if so?



You said their speech should be limited and supported law changes that would shut them down as a practical matter, no? So this seems like some legalistic bullshit.



I disagree that allowing black people to have their rights protected and supporting freedom of speech are contradictory. I have a principled belief that everyone should have their rights protected, especially their right to speak freely.



In what way do the statements meaningfully differ?



Like I said, you sandwiched a half-hearted condemnation of a clear attack on free speech between whataboutism and an irrelevant point. You're also giving the Georgia house a pass because the state senate didn't take it up. I think that, like your defense of limiting social-media companies' rights to criticize Trump, demonstrates that your commitment to the principle of freedom of speech (as opposed to just defending the freedom for people to agree with you) is not very strong or non-existent.



Yes.



To what? I'm saying that specifically trying to use the law to retaliate against a company because the CEO expressed a political opinion that the state house disliked is an attack on freedom of speech (it's actually similar to the way you supported gov't retaliation against Twitter). You're doing an awful lot of distracting considering that you claim to also oppose the action. You can see why one would question your sincerity here, can't you?



??? I'm discussing it.

Happy Friday.
 
To be honest, I think 230 is also irrelevant, except to the extent that misunderstanding of it makes some people feel more justified in arguing against free speech.

Well yeah, but that's the hot button that people are hinging on, the nonexistent "publisher" distinction that only seemed to come up when Trump was criticized. There's no reason to alter the rule as it's the backbone of the modern internet, but you're going to have to defend it on those grounds if they're going that direction. There's no logic to the 230 discussion, but it's the one we're having.
 
Lol @ him being invited to parties.
You just woke up choosing violence huh?

You been vibing to this?


Fucking gorgeous track. I'm a Q stan since the Black Hippy days. Remember early K-Dot and pre bucket hat Q?

Fucking fire. The era of TDE when Kendrick dropped Section 80 and and Q dropped Habits and Contradictions. Amazing time, you had A$AP Mob taking over too. Lmao I almost A$AP tattooed on my inner lip.

This song is legit one of my favorite hard af tracks out there. I used to fuck with this latina goth who would lay down on the floor and blow weed smoke through the barrel of my break over 12 guage into my mouth. We used to call it Kurt Cocaine, because she blew my head off if ya heard me.

Although after being shotgunned through a shotgun I said " Heming-ayyyy" and she didn't get the reference. Think she's dead now actually.

Fire though.

What you think about Young Thug?
Needs more Proper 12.
When Conor broke oug I was so stoked. My old academy literally nicknamed me Conor, he was born four days before me, when he broke in the UFC I had a ginger mohawk and wore the exact same Jaco vale tudo shorts. (Not on purpose. jaco made the best shorts out there imo. It was either Kenko or Tatami Fightwear spats because Aoki wore them magic pants, or Jaco vale Tudo with ankle wraps.)

Fuck him though. I got homies in Dublin that ruined him for me. I don't mind the gangs he rolls with. I got boys that pull pistols and slang and pimp, it's how he notoriously (hehe) treats his girl. Dude forgets he became famous, and the reason he was a great fighter, was the frequency of his fights.

Kid Yamamoto straight would fuck that dude up (RIP)

Also real talk, anyone know ANYWHERE I can buy DREAM merch? I can't even find a shirt.
 
No '97? Preposterous. He won the Royal Rumble through heel methods with a survival time of over 45 minutes (nobody else was in the ring for even half that), had the greatest match in the promotion's history at Wrestlemania 13, feuded with the Hart family all year, won the tag team titles with HBK, survived a career threatening neck injury to win the Intercontinental, dropped his first stunner on Vince, and his promos were all raw as fuck.

1997 >>>
Bret Hart was the actual RR winner. Stone Cold was a cheating son of a bitch.
 
You're going to have to elaborate on that one. Disparate treatment in public accommodations isn't a free speech concern (Heart of Atlanta Motel vs. US & Katzenbach vs. McClung). It's primarily an issue of interstate commerce, which racial discrimination absolutely affects. To the point that we had special books that told us where we could and couldn't go while travelling. There's no earthly way you can parlay that into a free speech concern, especially when you're discussing public accommodations. If you're open to one person, you're open to everyone. If you want to discriminate, don't be open to everyone.

In fact, the Civil Rights Movement served as one of the most forward advancements of 1st amendment rights via the Sullivan cases and Shuttlesworth vs Birmingham. The first step to removing Section 230 and enforcing the government restrictions on speech that you're talking about, you would need to invalidate New York Times vs Sullivan, which would decimate free speech protections in the country, especially with regard to libel. That's why Clarence Thomas making his dumb opinion to invalidate Sullivan was alarming. The path you're going down is a destruction of 1st amendment rights, not a strengthening of them.

Freedom of association is a free speech concern. And ruling that it doesn't apply to a business open to the public backs up my point. Social media like twitter is far more a matter of interstate commerce than a local restaurant, so the same federal jurisdiction applies. So yeah, twitter's 1st Amendment rights (which should have primacy over the commerce clause) aren't legally unassailable.

The other aspect of the argument is what's for the greater good, protecting the right of the business (whose model is to provide a platform of communication) to legally censor at their whim, or protecting the free speech of the public at large (who in this day and age relies on these platforms as a means to undertake that right).

For the record, my position is there should be an electronic public square that protects free speech to the full extent of the law. And that when someone doesn't like what someone has to say then they can block that person, rather than having the platform silence them altogether. And in the discussion Jack likes to refer to, I ultimately favored the idea of government buying a controlling interest in twitter stock rather than pass any legislation. Why twitter? Because it would be more effective than starting from scratch and it's become a primary source of news, not just communication.
 
You just woke up choosing violence huh?

You been vibing to this?


Fucking gorgeous track. I'm a Q stan since the Black Hippy days. Remember early K-Dot and pre bucket hat Q?

Fucking fire. The era of TDE when Kendrick dropped Section 80 and and Q dropped Habits and Contradictions. Amazing time, you had A$AP Mob taking over too. Lmao I almost A$AP tattooed on my inner lip.

This song is legit one of my favorite hard af tracks out there. I used to fuck with this latina goth who would lay down on the floor and blow weed smoke through the barrel of my break over 12 guage into my mouth. We used to call it Kurt Cocaine, because she blew my head off if ya heard me.

Although after being shotgunned through a shotgun I said " Heming-ayyyy" and she didn't get the reference. Think she's dead now actually.

Fire though.

What you think about Young Thug?

When Conor broke oug I was so stoked. My old academy literally nicknamed me Conor, he was born four days before me, when he broke in the UFC I had a ginger mohawk and wore the exact same Jaco vale tudo shorts. (Not on purpose. jaco made the best shorts out there imo. It was either Kenko or Tatami Fightwear spats because Aoki wore them magic pants, or Jaco vale Tudo with ankle wraps.)

Fuck him though. I got homies in Dublin that ruined him for me. I don't mind the gangs he rolls with. I got boys that pull pistols and slang and pimp, it's how he notoriously (hehe) treats his girl. Dude forgets he became famous, and the reason he was a great fighter, was the frequency of his fights.

Kid Yamamoto straight would fuck that dude up (RIP)

Also real talk, anyone know ANYWHERE I can buy DREAM merch? I can't even find a shirt.


I'm pretty much all over Gibbs, so yeah been spinning that hard lol.

TDE just confuses the fuck out of me. Kendrick refuses to drop, Q has no idea what his sound is supposed to be, Ab-Soul is trying his hardest to be Baby Kendrick, Jay Rock is Jay Rock, NOBODY knows what the fuck SZA is doing, and Isaiah Rashad was doing all the drugs for a minute there. How Top has all that talent and released ONE album in 2020 is beyond me. And beyond that, ain't shit on the dock for 2021. Like really? You let your best artist go FOUR YEARS AT LEAST between albums, are you high?

And thug...meh. Besides him speaking in arcane runes, he's never really hit a home run with me. Slime Season MAYBE? I hated his first album.
 
Freedom of association is a free speech concern. And ruling that it doesn't apply to a business open to the public backs up my point. Social media like twitter is far more a matter of interstate commerce than a local restaurant, so the same federal jurisdiction applies. So yeah, twitter's 1st Amendment rights (which should have primacy over the commerce clause) aren't legally unassailable.

The other aspect of the argument is what's for the greater good, protecting the right of the business (whose model is to provide a platform of communication) to legally censor at their whim, or protecting the free speech of the public at large (who in this day and age relies on these platforms as a means to undertake that right).

For the record, my position is there should be an electronic public square that protects free speech to the full extent of the law. And that when someone doesn't like what someone has to say then they can block that person, rather than having the platform silence them altogether. And in the discussion Jack likes to refer to, I ultimately favored the idea of government buying a controlling interest in twitter stock rather than pass any legislation. Why twitter? Because it would be more effective than starting from scratch and it's become a primary source of news, not just communication.
Just so I’m clear what’s going on here, what are you referring to as “censoring at their whim”? Fact checking the POTUS twitter account?
 
Lol The Onion

Matt Gaetz Claims Sex Trafficking Allegations Stem From Powerful Enemies In Ms. Bassman’s Geometry Class
 
Freedom of association is a free speech concern. And ruling that it doesn't apply to a business open to the public backs up my point. Social media like twitter is far more a matter of interstate commerce than a local restaurant, so the same federal jurisdiction applies. So yeah, twitter's 1st Amendment rights (which should have primacy over the commerce clause) aren't legally unassailable.

The other aspect of the argument is what's for the greater good, protecting the right of the business (whose model is to provide a platform of communication) to legally censor at their whim, or protecting the free speech of the public at large (who in this day and age relies on these platforms as a means to undertake that right).

For the record, my position is there should be an electronic public square that protects free speech to the full extent of the law. And that when someone doesn't like what someone has to say then they can block that person, rather than having the platform silence them altogether. And in the discussion Jack likes to refer to, I ultimately favored the idea of government buying a controlling interest in twitter stock rather than pass any legislation. Why twitter? Because it would be more effective than starting from scratch and it's become a primary source of news, not just communication.

Those rulings had nothing to do with "freedom of association", they had to do with interstate commerce. If you're denying me the right to use a public accommodation, I have to find somewhere that will give me that accommodation. At scale, you're directly affecting the changing of money between states (via funneling of trade to another location), and that's exactly why it was ruled the way it was. Keep in mind, we already have an example of this affecting interstate commerce in the Green Books. You'll note that the cases I mentioned aren't argued on 1st amendment grounds, they're argued on 5th and 14th amendment grounds, due to this being an issue of usage of property and trade as it relates to that. Broadly, racial discrimination in public accommodations affects interstate commerce and can be regulated on those grounds. Again, if you want to discriminate, make a private organization, not a public one. The government has long held up the rights of businesses to decide their clientele as it relates to private business. In fact, it's the 1st amendment right of association that allows them to do so, so long as it's not on the grounds of discrimination against protected classes. Because again, broadly, it affects interstate commerce.
 
167486595_10217953709493627_365630117020483673_n.jpg
I could see you playing rumpelstiltskin in an updated version of the story.
 
Just so I’m clear what’s going on here, what are you referring to as “censoring at their whim”? Fact checking the POTUS twitter account?

Nope. You're making the mistake of thinking Jack is honestly presenting my position. Pay more attention to what I say my position is, instead of his chronic mischaracterizations, and you'll be better off.
 
Nope. You're making the mistake of thinking Jack is honestly presenting my position. Pay more attention to what I say my position is, instead of his chronic mischaracterizations, and you'll be better off.

I am honestly representing your position. I know you rolled other complaints into it, but that was what got the ball rolling.
 
Those rulings had nothing to do with "freedom of association", they had to do with interstate commerce. If you're denying me the right to use a public accommodation, I have to find somewhere that will give me that accommodation. At scale, you're directly affecting the changing of money between states (via funneling of trade to another location), and that's exactly why it was ruled the way it was. Keep in mind, we already have an example of this affecting interstate commerce in the Green Books. You'll note that the cases I mentioned aren't argued on 1st amendment grounds, they're argued on 5th and 14th amendment grounds, due to this being an issue of usage of property and trade as it relates to that. Broadly, racial discrimination in public accommodations affects interstate commerce and can be regulated on those grounds. Again, if you want to discriminate, make a private organization, not a public one. The government has long held up the rights of businesses to decide their clientele as it relates to private business. In fact, it's the 1st amendment right of association that allows them to do so, so long as it's not on the grounds of discrimination against protected classes. Because again, broadly, it affects interstate commerce.

Cool. But the ultimate point being made, and that you recognize at the end of your paragraph, is that the government restricts the 1A rights of businesses when it decides there's a greater good to be served. How it's justified is minutiae, and frankly bullshit if the backbone of it is the commerce clause. If the CC trumps the 1A then government is free to censor the press, or any church that takes donations, etc. But again, this portion of the discussion isn't an argument that says the government should limit twitter's free speech. It's an argument that contradicts the claim that the government can't limit it.

And I'll reiterate that when Jack says I want to shut twitter down because it fact checked Trump, that's an incredibly dishonest representation of what I've actually advocated. Which I'll post again, since your lack of comment leaves open the possibility you didn't read that far.

For the record, my position is there should be an electronic public square that protects free speech to the full extent of the law. And that when someone doesn't like what someone has to say then they can block that person, rather than having the platform silence them altogether. And in the discussion Jack likes to refer to, I ultimately favored the idea of government buying a controlling interest in twitter stock rather than pass any legislation. Why twitter? Because it would be more effective than starting from scratch and it's become a primary source of news, not just communication.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top