This is one of the reason we have more and more protected classes. Political ideology just isn't one (yet?)
But, to bring it full circle, I don't think that someone selling socks or underwear on Twilio is going to be banned. When that happens, ok.
Furthermore, I know people believe in freedom of expression, and more or less capitalism. I know the Republican Party members side pretty heavily with the cake maker that refused to make cakes for gay weddings, or Catholic hospitals that refuse to offer birth control pills or abortions. But for some reason, when a privately owned company like Twillio, or Facebook, or whomever wants to limit their customer base, it's always a different story, then. For me, yes. For you, no.
Who decides what is overthrow/bad speech? Are they fallible? Do you think protecting the "ignorant masses" is beneficial to democracy? If you have someone dictate what can be said to you, won't that make you less able to think for yourself?
>I know the Republican Party members side pretty heavily with the cake maker that refused to make cakes for gay weddings
Although I agree there always are logically inconsistent people, I don't think this backs it up. Cakes matter so much less than than speech. I haven't thought/not familiar with the hospitals so that might be more appropriate.
>But, to bring it full circle, I don't think that someone selling socks or underwear on Twilio is going to be banned. When that happens, ok.
Yes, but they have shown they want a say in how you conduct your business. What if they ban you for doing business with certain people, what prevents them? (Not their morals as far as they've shown).
Not saying it's likely you will get banned, but I think it should be considered so companies don't all start doing this and you have to shop companies+moral compass.
Ah, the good ole "who decides" routine. I don't have a specific answer to that. However, what I will say is that we, as a people, have all kinds of panels to decide stuff. The SEC. The FEC. The FDA. So I'd say that the country should only accept people who are independent and not members of either political party. People who maybe have studied and understand what demagoguery is. Also, let it be known, I love how you change what I said - demagoguery - to "bad speech". Noice.
>Are they fallible?
Sure, so does this mean that nobody decides anything on the behalf of all of us? No judges, no congress, local government, etc? That we live in a governmental system of pure anarchy, where all of us do what we wish? That's a rhetorical question...of course that will never happen.
>Do you think protecting the "ignorant masses" is beneficial to democracy?
After what we've seen over the last 1.5 years, for sure. Remember, when the constitution was first framed, only white men with property could vote.
>If you have someone dictate what can be said to you, won't that make you less able to think for yourself?
Silly argument. Do we really have to go over this for the 100 millionth time? Yes, speech can be limited. "Can't yell fire, yada, yada, yada."
>If you have someone dictate what can be said to you, won't that make you less able to think for yourself?
"think for yourself" Ha. Haha. Hahahahaha. People thinking for themselves. That's a good one. Thanks for the belly laugh, I appreciate humor.
>Yes, but they have shown they want a say in how you conduct your business. What if they ban you for doing business with certain people, what prevents them?
It's their platform. They own it. Start your own platform and let people do what they want. Competition. Capitalism. Find a niche and fill it. You should do this, you'll probably do well.
And it is so hilariously funny. The Republicans claim that they have their free speech cut off on Twitter and Facebook. However, on all of their platforms, like conservepedia and reddit's /r/conservatives, and the conservatives new answer to twitter called Parler, they ban everyone that is not conservative. F-cking hilarious.
Look. There are "protected classes/troups." I didn't create them, neither did you. A very few people decided what protected classes are. They decided for us. There's no say at this point. Every person does not get to decide for themselves. It is set in stone, and all have to obey, unless congress changes it.
.
Protected classes include:
Race – Civil Rights Act of 1964
Religion – Civil Rights Act of 1964
National origin – Civil Rights Act of 1964
Age (40 and over) – Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
Sex – Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Civil Rights Act of 1964
Sexual orientation and gender identity as of Bostock v. Clayton County – Civil Rights Act of 1964[3]
Pregnancy – Pregnancy Discrimination Act
Familial status – Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII: Prohibits discrimination for having children, with an exception for senior housing Also prohibits making a preference for those with children.
Disability status – Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Veteran status – Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
Genetic information – Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group#United_States)
.
No one is allowed to discriminate against any of the groups above. So when you say "who decides"? Well, people do. People who are elected to government.
In the same way, the government could pass a law saying "No demagoguery."
.
Read this, just read it. It PERFECTLY fits Trump:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogue
How does this not perfectly fit Trump? Demagoguery is thousands of years old, been understood for thousands of years. It has not something developed when Trump became president, just to "stick it to him."
"In every age the vilest specimens of human nature are to be found among demagogues."
— Thomas Macaulay, The History of England from the Accession of James II (1849)
"The shortest way to ruin a country is to give power to demagogues."
— Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Antiquities of Rome, VI (20 BC)
