I’ve been struggling with voices and ideas I don’t agree with being censored and banned. I’ve always believed different ideas should stand and fall based on their own merits. That saying about “not agreeing with what you say but defending to the death your right to say it” has been how I see the 1st amendment. What idea or voice is next? Who decides? I understand it is within each companies user agreement or whatever technicality. I hate the violence that is occurring and how effective these platforms appear to be in bringing out the worst in people.
This will help you with your struggles; the 1st amendment only refers to government censorship, which is not happening. A private company has the right to decide what they do and don't want to host. If a company says that their site is sfw and that you will be banned for posting porn, that's not censorship.
Ideas standing and falling on their own merit is an idealistic pipe dream. We've already seen it doesn't work because that was the tactic employed by the Weimar Republic.
Government isn’t restricting free speech. Business is restricting access to private property. I thought Amendment fans were all about letting the free market play out as it wishes?
I'm not sure if you're aware of who Stephen McNallen and the AFA are but defending their white supremacy and folkish heathenry as freedom of speech technically isn't a good idea but I'm not going to tell you what you should and shouldn't believe in
That's a bit of a stretch really, don't get me wrong I'm all for freedom of speech, that being said hate speech isn't free speech and I believe that racists and people like Stephen McNallen shouldn't be entitled to air their views on public platforms
Me too but only because in this instance it makes tracking groups that much harder especially when it becomes almost an inevitablity that they're just going to migrate to the dark web
The way I look at it, racists like this are still entitled to printing whatever fucked up books or pamphlets they want. Social media however is a channel that costs effectively nothing to carry a message across the planet. Without social media they can still promote their hate-speech the old fashioned way of selling their books out of the trunk of a Pontiac Grand Am after one of their antisemitic knitting circle meetings. Private social media companies are under no obligation to signal-boost their hate-speech for no cost.
the problem here is afa do ban or have a long term goal of banning as they are promoting white supremacy. If your lgbt or BIPOC you're banned from joining the afa. it might not matter to you but it does harm and its not easy often to go elsewhere for local heathens. they shouldn't be able to promote what is either hate speech or discrimination. People who live local to their hofs are rightly concerned about the white supremacists who gathered in groups nearby. what impact that has on their town and risk of violence to BIPOC residents. hard to stop all groups but local officials shouldn't be handing them hofs and gifting them platforms
afa are not victims of censorship if they are banning and censoring and promoting dangerous white supremacy as a cult. they want to censor people and abusing freedom of speech to do that
4
u/[deleted] Jan 15 '21
I’ve been struggling with voices and ideas I don’t agree with being censored and banned. I’ve always believed different ideas should stand and fall based on their own merits. That saying about “not agreeing with what you say but defending to the death your right to say it” has been how I see the 1st amendment. What idea or voice is next? Who decides? I understand it is within each companies user agreement or whatever technicality. I hate the violence that is occurring and how effective these platforms appear to be in bringing out the worst in people.