Social media sites shut down infowars

[_subgenius]

Do wedding cake bakers fall under public accommodation laws?

Not unless they offer food for consumption on the premises...so for the sake of my question assume they don't.

Do social media sites fall under public accommodation laws?

Nope, but I'm encouraged that you appreciate the legal loopholes for discrimination.

My own personal opinion is bakeries should be required to serve everyone if they're a public business, and they should be required to bake the same type of general wedding cake for gays as they do for heteros.

I look forward to your completely irrational reasoning for how another private business doesn't enjoy a consistent "personal opinion" from you.

However, they should not be required to put any overtly homoerotic art on the cake if requested.

what a nonsensical line to draw. Any other arbitrary morals you want to codify?

It's really no different than an interracial couple being denied a wedding cake, and I'm sure the same arguments were made back then.

Apart from the diminishing notion of trying to "same" with civil rights, know that it is really different because being gay is not immutable.
But hey, I get it, you're like a lot of people who confuse political power with being correct.

Also, I don't think being an insane fear mongerer is covered by non-discrimination laws.

You might be right, but it is covered by the 1st amendment.

[_honorentheos]

His civil war propaganda complicates it for me. Otherwise I would be opposed to censoring his speech unequivocally.

Is it censoring when a supermarket decides to no longer carry a brand of beer because, after a while, they realize nobody buys it?

There is a marketplace of material for these platforms, and the proprietors aren't required to carry everything just because it exists.

Here's the thing. As the free market of ideas and speech has moved to social media I think it's critical for civil liberties that these types of issues be intelligently and thouroghly debated. The argument they should not be required to carry any ol' speech out there is not debating the issue it's avoiding it.

Now, InfoWars has been moving into territory that I think calls into question if their freedom of expression was becoming dangerous. In particular Alex Jones' hyping up of a civil war between liberals and conservatives. I think that is justifiably concerning just as a person shouting fire in a crowded building is not protected speech.

[_Some Schmo]

Here's the thing. As the free market of ideas and speech has moved to social media I think it's critical for civil liberties that these types of issues be intelligently and thouroghly debated.

I agree in principle.

The argument they should not be required to carry any ol' speech out there is not debating the issue it's avoiding it.

I don't think that's true, and the primary reason is context. Social media sites, although open to the public, are not publicly funded services. And Jones still has a platform. He's not being silenced except in that whiny right wing "war on Christmas" kind of way (in other words, not really being silenced at all). If people are intent on listening to him, they know where to find him.

Social media sites have user agreements. As private enterprises with board members who are concerned about their bottom lines, they can choose what's best to host on their sites for maximum profit. What you're essentially saying is that I can shoot a video of myself waving my dick in the wind, and then demand YouTube and Facebook publish it without recourse. How is that respecting everyone's rights?

[_honorentheos]

I don't think that's true, and the primary reason is context. Social media sites, although open to the public, are not publicly funded services. And Jones still has a platform. He's not being silenced except in that whiny right wing "war on Christmas" kind of way (in other words, not really being silenced at all). If people are intent on listening to him, they know where to find him.

Social media sites have user agreements. As private enterprises with board members who are concerned about their bottom lines, they can choose what's best to host on their sites for maximum profit. What you're essentially saying is that I can shoot a video of myself waving my dick in the wind, and then demand YouTube and Facebook publish it without recourse. How is that respecting everyone's rights?

Timing wise, I think it is justifiable that InfoWars is facing ramifications for inciting civil war. That's what I'm saying. And I think defending the actions taken is on solid ground when framed that way.

Framing it as the only viable places in the open market of social media not having some obligation to enable freedom of expression is dangerous and mistaken.

[_Kishkumen]

I don’t see that sane media companies are any more obliged than homophobic bakers to convey messages they don’t agree with. I’m surprised that conservatives aren’t consistent on that one.

[Guest]

I don’t see that sane media companies are any more obliged than homophobic bakers to convey messages they don’t agree with. I’m surprised that conservatives aren’t consistent on that one.

Perhaps, but I try to be. In this case, the question of civil liberties being violated seems to be in conflict with threatening society with a call to civil war. I don't think there is a difficult argument to make that inciting armed uprisings crosses a line when it comes to freedom of expression, even if done in a passive-aggressive manner.

[_Some Schmo]

Timing wise, I think it is justifiable that InfoWars is facing ramifications for inciting civil war. That's what I'm saying. And I think defending the actions taken is on solid ground when framed that way.

Yes, this is absolutely true. Your "fire in a theater" comparison is apt.

But I also think it only reinforces the point that business people are justified in disassociating themselves from content they think is destructive. This isn't the government.

I'm confused as to why you think these specific businesses are obligated to service the public in all things.

People have been talking about companies like Facebook becoming more responsible about what they publish, after all the shared BS during the 2016 election. I believe this is an attempt in that direction. We'll see what happens, I suppose.

Framing it as the only viable places in the open market of social media not having some obligation to enable freedom of expression is dangerous and mistaken.

But we're talking about a specific exception, not the rule. See justification above.

Is not publishing Alex Jones going to significantly disable freedom of expression for everyone else who uses those sites, or just filter out a tiny crappy slice?

I get having higher ideals, and free speech is a lofty ideal that we share. But in practicality, it's not always perfect or appropriate, and there are ramifications for abusing it... in certain contexts. I have free speech at work, for instance, but if I like what I do, there are certain things I need to avoid saying. I don't feel oppressed in that situation. My payment is contingent on continued relationships. That's business.

[_Kishkumen]

I don’t see that sane media companies are any more obliged than homophobic bakers to convey messages they don’t agree with. I’m surprised that conservatives aren’t consistent on that one.

Perhaps, but I try to be.

I was being sarcastic.

[_honorentheos]

I was being sarcastic.

I should have assumed that, but given the argument to this point I was aiming for clarity. My apologies for being a bit thick as to your intentions.

[_honorentheos]

Timing wise, I think it is justifiable that InfoWars is facing ramifications for inciting civil war. That's what I'm saying. And I think defending the actions taken is on solid ground when framed that way.

Yes, this is absolutely true. Your "fire in a theater" comparison is apt.

But I also think it only reinforces the point that business people are justified in disassociating themselves from content they think is destructive. This isn't the government.

I'm confused as to why you think these specific businesses are obligated to service the public in all things.

Public accommodation is at the heart of the civil rights act that I tend to place in a central position when looking at these issues and how they affect the ideal of a liberal democracy. Private institutions that provide public services have a certain obligation to not discriminate based on protected classes, but underlying the defined protected classes is a history of expanding the understanding in the direction of identifying discriminatory practices that fly in the face of democratic values and updating them.

Right now there is no alternative social media venue that isn't private like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. To be censored from those platforms is to be erased from the public debate. in my opinion, there needs to be a strong argument for doing so that shows the public interest is far better served by this censorship than by the protection of civil liberties.

It's that simple, in my opinion.