It is sad that people seem to have lost the desire for free speech, even when its offensive.
That was the government limiting protest, not a private business limiting specific actions on its own 'property'. I do not support someone's first amendment right to protest inside a private building, for example.
But there is more to being gay than simply being attracted to the same sex. If you cannot express your feelings then you are limiting homosexuality.
The current argument is that limiting something in one area is okay because they can do other things. Limiting gays from holding hands in public should be okay, because they can hold hands on private property. That would be the logical conclusion of limiting free speech in one area vs all areas.
You keep making this thing about free speech. The lad was using Twitter to be a jerk off, so he was booted out. Again, it ain't an issue o' his freedom of speech (otherwise, he'd have been booted out into a gulag), it's an issue of him being a complete dick.
But there is more to being gay than simply being attracted to the same sex. If you cannot express your feelings then you are limiting homosexuality.
The current argument is that limiting something in one area is okay because they can do other things. Limiting gays from holding hands in public should be okay, because they can hold hands on private property. That would be the logical conclusion of limiting free speech in one area vs all areas.
Right, which is why I do not think the government needs to get involved with Twitter and its TOS. I believe that freedom of speech is important, because it allows us to have thoughts and ideas that others might not like. In a world where speech is limited, then those in power can stop things they do not like. So when I see speech being limited that does not infringe on others rights, I speak up. I think twitter limiting free speech is immoral, but they have every right to do it, because twitter should not be limited by my beliefs on morality. That said, I will argue for the reason I think my beliefs are correct.
Why should that be protected and not other things? If your activity does not infringe on others rights, why should you or should you not be limited?
Not sure what you're trying to say here?
No, the current argument is that private property owners have the right to limit speech on their property, which is true. In your example it would certainly be illegal to ban gay people from holding hands in public and almost certainly illegal for private property.
As far as speech goes, private business owners have wide latitude to police speech on their property, one that I enthusiastically support. They have similar rights to police almost all other kinds of activity on their property as well, so long as they are not limiting those rules or regulations to actions specific to a protected class.
But, what is the moral argument for limiting free speech on private property, but not limiting gays from holding hands or expressing their feelings on that same property?
you are making an assumption that free speech cannot infringe on others' rights?
Twitter is a business. Should they be forced to let people harm their business?What do you think free speech is? Just because the government does not limit it, does not mean others do not. You can limit free speech other ways than through the government.
Do you not realize these things?
I'm pretty neutral about it. I support free speech and so I don't like people limiting it, but I also support a businesses right to run things how they see fit. I can certainly see why removing toxic members of a community like this guy makes their product more desirable.
Twitter is a business. Should they be forced to let people harm their business?
You can keep crying "free speech" as much as you want but the bottom line is that muppets like milo are damaging their brand. There's no reason why they have to let them.
the word "reasonable"
Nope, because reasonable is subjective. I know far too many bigots that think kids should not be exposed to homosexuals kissing because kids cannot understand it as being reasonable. To anyone who is not a bigot, that is a stupid argument, but to many it is a reasonable argument. That is why we would never want to limit people based off of something so subjective. I sure as hell dont want to be told what I can do morally by a bigot, or anyone for that matter. If my actions do not infringe on others rights, then leave me the fuck alone. Same goes for anyone else and their actions.
My argument is that people are happy that he was banned for speech, and I think that is a bad sentiment to have. Nobody is happy that twitter has the right, they are happy that Milo cannot spread his speech as easily.
"reasonable" is subjective until there is case law. in all of these cases there is case law and reasonable is no longer subjective in the way you're suggesting.
If the speech done by the jerkoff is not illegal yes. Do you not understand that?
So can I. I can also see how not hiring black people to work in a store in a city that is racist would also make that store more popular. I think doing that would be bad for society though.
You keep trying to paint this as some kind of rights issue, when it's clearly like a black guy getting shitcanned for continuing to harass customers after repeated told not to.
The pretense of many other black employee not getting shitcanned because they're not complete shitposting jackasses seals the deal.
Fucking what? lol.
Just because its case law, does not mean that its now objective. The opinion of the judges is 100% subjective. Are you saying that during the slave era that black men were not equal to whites, because case law had been established?
I'm happy that they banned him for being a dick.
I'd have been happier if he could have not been a dick in the first place and could have discussed things like an adult.
You do not. They ban you here the same thing. You have no rights to post here or any other forum. Why is it that you do not understand your free speech :thumbsdown:
You keep trying to paint this as some kind of rights issue, when it's clearly like a black guy getting shitcanned for continuing to harass customers after repeated told not to.
The pretense of many other black employee not getting shitcanned because they're not complete shitposting jackasses seals the deal.