- Joined
- Jun 14, 2009
- Messages
- 28,964
- Reaction score
- 15,422
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.