General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsQuestion I have about free speech.
Why is it that when conservatives talk about getting banned from social media sites because of their views and politics, the first thing they immediately do is talk about how Hitler banned free speech. They immediately go to the Hitler card as an excuse to spew their hatred and vitriol.
My question is, is there a counterpoint to this talking point? What's the actual history behind this logic? And if I find myself in a conversation with a MAGAhole is the a way to counter it?
world wide wally
(21,754 posts)Codeine
(25,586 posts)starts limiting their speech then theyll have a talking point. Until then these are private businesses making private business decisions applying exclusively to their own private business platforms.
Dont you support the rights of private enterprise above all? Isnt that a huge part of your pathetic philosophy? Then shut the fuck up, you slack-jawed yokel.
Aristus
(66,446 posts)"Unless the government throws you in jail for what you said, your free speech rights have not been violated. Private businesses are allowed to regulate content. Do you hate private business? Do you hate capitalism?!? ARE YOU A COMMUNIST?!?! HUH?!"
And so on...
They won't like that very much.
shanny
(6,709 posts)Or was it a private company? Ask 'em if they are in favor of telling private companies how to run their business? Ask 'em if their feelings are more important than a business' profits?
Probably won't work. Lil' snowflakes.
0rganism
(23,967 posts)it wasn't just "conservative" views and politics, i see plenty of that on what i consider social media. regularly.
to actually get banned, you have to do something exceptional -- at least by the site's standards. one doesn't typically get banned for steady state assholery.
the devil's in the details, and there's a whole lot of devil going on lately.
Mariana
(14,860 posts)VarryOn
(2,343 posts)Let them create their own social media...Foxbook would be a sart.
Joe941
(2,848 posts)sl8
(13,864 posts)Of course, private organizations, for the most part, can restrict speech as they see fit.
Joe941
(2,848 posts)Codeine
(25,586 posts)to incite violence that is both imminent and likely then it is very much protected speech as has been determined and upheld in multiple decisions by the Supreme Court.
The original decision protected a statement made by a protester during a confrontation with the police stating theyd come back and take the street later, so good luck proving that random-ass Internet blitherings are incitement that fulfills both of the above requirements.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)Youre not half as clever as you think, btw.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)Also explain that Hitler would most likely be on their side, not ours. Hitler was anti-immigrant, anti-minorities, a white supremacist, anti-science, ect. Hitler was like republicans and the right are now.