Why do you say those two things are equivalent? Why can’t it be good to ban nazis planning violence on one social network, and bad to refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding? Those are very distinct things.
“It’s okay to ban speech I find offensive” becomes “ it’s OK to ban speech deemed offensive by this committee” when it becomes policy. Then the committee becomes a target for influence or corruption, because if you control the committee then you control speech. This is bad whether we are talking about governments or corporations, if those corporations have monopoly or oligarchy control over platforms of discourse.
That’s why it’s generally a good idea to only ban speech which is threatening direct violence, or inciting violence, or other very specific things. “Ban fascists” is too broad.
The fact that a line could be drawn badly is not a great reason to not draw the line well. People who didn’t commit murder can also be convicted of and punished for murder, but that’s not a great slippery slope argument for never punishing murderers.
That’s only an argument against the death penalty if accompanied by another argument for why the death penalty is distinct from other forms of punishment, otherwise we would conclude that all legal penalties are bad for the same reasons.
What do you mean? The Supreme Court sided with the baker.[0] So why shouldn’t AWS be allowed not to host Parler if the baker can choose not to make a gay wedding cake?
In one case it's a message of love. In the other it's a message of hate. You're personally welcome to treat them both the same, but I think you'll find most of society will treat the messages very differently.
If you can't understand why I'd imagine you're going to spend a lot of your life being extremely confused, angry and frustrated.
(I can't see the flagged post that's at the top of this subthread so if this is a bit out of context that is why)
If the baker thinks it's a message of sin, then what? It's not like selling them a room at a hotel or any other standard thing. This is a custom crafted item and message that they are being asked to help propagate, and one that they disagree with.
What exactly is your point? I would hope a baker would treat someone who they feel is sinning by being in love with the "wrong" person, differently than they treat someone who is advocating for the elimination of an entire group of people due to their race or religion. ESPECIALLY given that the baker believes in sin because of their own religion...
The fact you're equating the two is actually disturbing.
The nazis are getting special treatment. If they were brown terrorists planning any kind of attacks they would be hit with drone strikes or held at Guantánamo.
Sheesh, there’s a wee bit of difference between a baker refusing to bake a cake and people threatening to kill others (and the platform refusing to remove that content).
This has been repeated time and time again, but once more: sexual and gender identities are protected classes in the United States. Being generally reprehensible isn't.
> sexual and gender identities are protected classes in the United States
This isn't the case at the federal level, which is why the "gay wedding cake" event could be settled in favor of the bakers. It's currently up to individual states to determine whether sexual orientation, etc. is a protected class.
"U.S. federal law protects individuals from discrimination or harassment based on the following nine protected classes: sex, race, age, disability, color, creed, national origin, religion, or genetic information. [...] Although it is not required by federal law, state law and employer policies may also protect employees from harassment or discrimination based on marital status or sexual orientation."
Some people define generally reprehensible as having bad hygiene. Should that be a bannable offense? You cant just ban people on the basis of subject terms like this
In the context of running a business? Yes. If your body odor is so bad that you interfere with my ability to provide services, it doesn't seem to be a particular stretch for me to deny you access.
>Just because they have the right to do it does not means it’s a good thing.
I'm sorry if I weren't clear. That was my personal reaction and my personal opinion, not an objective evaluation of the situation (since I'm pretty sure it's not "good" for anyone working at Parlor lol).
But considering the kind of damage those people are doing to the society and I just happen to live in the exact same society, yeah, in my very humble opinion they can royally go get fucked.
I see this comparison a lot and I want to point out exactly why it’s false:
We oppose discrimination against protected classes because generally we recognize that people cannot elect into or opt out easily of those classes. It’s generally greed upon that people do not choose to be gay.
Parler’s users choose to post white supremacist content.
I see no contradiction in insisting that gay people be served under the law while advocating that private companies retain their right to refuse service to White supremacists.
The Supreme Court has backed this up: discrimination on the basis of sex, which includes sexuality, is illegal, while discrimination on the basis of political ideology is not.
This is not a good argument, as it implies that if science finds a way to change sexual preference then the protection should be revoked.
Also political views can not be changed easily either, it requires exposure to facts during a long time in a way that would circumvent brain's desire to be right.
But more importantly the right of companies to refuse service as a substitution to real justice is not going to fix society, it will only make things worse when bad guys get the power. Justice requires rules, not arbitrary actions by private companies.
