Is le smart stick figure man correct?

Is le smart stick figure man correct?

Attached: IMG_20190826_114132.jpg (566x577, 73K)

Objectively, yes. Freedom of speech is what llow you o make an argument. but if you have no argument, saying "freedom of speech" does not make your point goes further.

So, yeah, nothing to complain about, there.

>if government does thing it's bad
>if corporation does same thing it's fine
It's just funny to see an argument so nakedly libertarian being used and adopted by people who despise libertarians.

i wonder if he would tell himself this after he gets thrown off a website

>being locked in jail is the same as being banned from a discord server

Absolutely yes. Just because you have a right to freedom of speech doesn't mean people are obligated to listen to you, it just means governments can't stop you from exercising your right.
Corporations are unfortunately not obligated to comply with that either, and that's because you allowed it.
Considering the government itself set the precedent for that, I don't think there's any hypocrisy there. Turns out in America, corporations are people too who have their private interests so protected that they can't be enforced to protect the fundamental rights of their costumers and employees.

if freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences then why are people mad at nazis beating up LGBT marches?

Has this place rotted your brain so hard that you can't tell the different between saying something and hitting someone?

Usually it's the opposite though?
But no I don't think anyone is mad at that, they're mad that they exist at all, but these marches have been taking place for decades.

You still have a right to be mad, just like the conservatives pissed their pants when Andy Ngo got hit by a milkshake

STOP TRYING TO START SHIT

Attached: 1565282486888.jpg (750x1076, 253K)

Nah.

Attached: 1545291660548.png (757x3030, 240K)

Please go back

All the spelling errors makes it an even more obvious edit.

Based

Right, except, again, Americans basically made it so corporations don't have to abide to these rules. And apparently it works well for them because private property and enterprise is so well valued over there that anyone can have their own platform. Turns out corporations could (and ideally should) protect the rights of those who use their platform even if they don't agree with it, but you can't force them to do it because they have zero incentive to do so. Welcome to America.
And I'm not saying this is good at all, I'm reiterating that this is the state of things that Americans themselves allowed and fostered. And it's also why the only way to push back against decisions that openly go against freedom of speech and other fundamental rights is monetary boycotts, because that's all they care about in the end.

So spare us your "nah", because that's merely idealistic nonsense for private companies, thanks to the capitalist system you've welcomed with open arms.

Cringe

THESE THREADS ARE KABUKI THEATRE COORDINATED BY RIGHTIST DISCORDS

Absolutely not. A necessary but implicit part of the freedom of speech is the freedom to participate in the marketplace of ideas in the first place.

It's not just a protection against governmental tyrany, but a requirement for civil society in the first place. Deplatfortming is undemocratic.

>when Andy Ngo got hit by a milkshake
That had quick-dry cement in it, burning his skin.

>anyone can have their own platform
Wrong; payment processors and web-hosts exclude non-conformist platforms.

>lefty can't help but be vulgar
Pottery

Good

Yes, absolutely 100% correct, but Trump can't block me on Twitter because that's a violation of my 1st Amendment rights.

Turns out decades of arguing for corporate personhood, increased privatization, and the removal of checks and regulations on said corporate entities can backfire on you.
If only someone had tried to warn you.

It didn’t, that was proud boy propaganda, but I wish it did

>tumblr is this lazy

Attached: FreeSpeech.png (1080x751, 1003K)

I want communists to go

Stop making these threads

God I fucking hate white people

That's not fair, user.
Goblins are cute.

Attached: 1565812754849.png (527x702, 191K)

>violence is okay when we do it

The most sobering realization is that none of you are good people. You are not magnanimous, honorable, kind, honest, etc. You are all trash people that would make up the vanguard of any other ideology.

It's only by cosmic fluke that you're on the "right side", but it does not reflect on you as a person.

>"oh no mcdonalds is oppressing me" is the same as "you are being arrested for violation of law 543b-2: Invalid opinion"
ok

In theory, babe. Yeah, I'm aware payment processors are also another can of worms (sex workers face this hurdle with credit card services and bank companies, but you never talk about those) and web hosts can also have their own set of terms and regulations, but nothing stops you from starting your own servers either. It costs more money but again, American capitalism. You don't need to use private web hosting, it's just easier.

Also this.

>one organization doing things is different from another organization doing things that we call the "government"

epic

We know faggot

It’s OK, Trump will save you.

What difference does it make if its the government stopping you from speaking your mind to others, or corporations that own the means of communication stopping you from speaking to others?
Why is the second example more moral or permissible? At least the government is democratically elected.

Only one of those organizations has a monopoly on violence, though.

Ask a libertarian

Because one is a publicly owned entity that answers to the people, and the other isn't. I think this is quite obvious.

>non-conformist
aka Nazis, stay in your hug box you reddit faggot.

wrong

Attached: 1566836473.jpg (682x1024, 140K)

Extremely low quality troll thread

Companies have freedom of association, the government doesn’t.

Violence isnt the only kind of force, and social force is arguably more dangerous than most violence today.

Partially. You can't use "freedom of speech" to shield yourself from criticism, and people have the right (to some reasonable extent) not to listen to you. But, say, barring some people from appearing in on campuses and giving their lectures if there's an audience to hear them based on ideological differences is definitely a move against the freedom of speech. Also, supranational corporations like Facebook have long surpassed the level of influence where they can be regarded as simple business entities. They're political entities and should be treated accordingly.

Neither of those are moral arguments.

>corporations that own the means
That's the reason there. If you want to talk on the internet you are free to put up your own website. Nobody is expected to let you talk on their site if they don't want to.

Its America, they love getting on their knees for corporations

This is the same incel that keeps spamming

A company is a private entity, they are free to do what they with(for the most part) with their platforms, although the irony is many people ok with them restricting speech on this ground are probably against them in other areas they aren't regulated on.

It's a nice meta-commentary about how political threads are allowed as long as they're left leaning and don't insult the janitor's girlfriend(male)

Attached: 1566056812217.png (693x598, 201K)

>the right (to some reasonable extent) not to listen to you
why the parenthesis, they have the right to not listen, in every occasion.

What moral argument gives you the right to use the private property of social media platforms against the will of their owners?

Yes. All these idiots whining about muh corporations are stupid. It's about the difference between being able to host your own nazi website vs. being allowed to be a nazi on a non nazi website.

Morality has no place in this conversation so that second question of yours wasn't pertinent to the subject.

It's perfectly moral to own what you create.

It's only a problem in how the company defines itself. If your a publication you have every right to censor how you'd like because at the end of the day you are responsible for what is published. If you're a platform you have no right censoring anything because you aren't responsible for what some dipshit says using your platform. If you're a company you can't just do a little of both you have to make it clear whether your a publication or a platform

It's not far now...

So you would also say, for example, that the government should be free from racism, but private corporations should be able to hire only white people?

Go back

But if you and your company make a platform it’s perfectly reasonable to kick someone off who you don’t want there

Fuck pol

Corporations honestly don’t have to follow diversity quotas because they can just get away with anything

The same moral argument that a king or oligarch or other powerful individual doesn't have the right to abuse those under his care.
If corporations are people, then they have the same moral responsibilities as people.

If you own the only source of water in a town, and the town depends on it for life, it is not moral to poison it or unfairly restrict it.

But what if your platform becomes a major means of communication that a society relies upon?
Would it be moral for someone's phone line to be cut off because he believed in some crazy whackjob religion all the phone providers thought was silly?

>having your bank account and credit card frozen isn’t the same
Nice cherry picking

No because then you're a publication. If your service is a platform then you give it to everyone, otherwise you're responsible for every damn thing posted on your site.

I’d say it’s their right. Those companies should get ready for the fierce boycotts and protests, though.
Their clients also have freedom of speech.

based

>pol
It's /pol/, user. Forgetting the slashes is the biggest sign of newfaggotry.

That's not really an answer, user. Going by the line of logic presented so far, corporations should be allowed to have racially discriminating policies.

So you'd support the removal of anti-racial discrimination laws. Your views seem very libertarian, do you consider yourself one?

>doesn't have the right to abuse those under his care.
But that’s the argument they’re already using. That’s why they’re banning nazis.

A government represents all the people if it picks and chooses than that means it's not doing it's civic duty, a corporation is not obligated to serve everybody, in a free market someone will eventually tap a market that is untapped. This is why most corporations put on a show of inclusivity it expands the amount of people who are buying, they aren't doing it out of the good of their hard just out of good business.

Fuck off to your containment board.

You are tho

But there are laws against racially discriminating hiring practices. Would you agree with their removal?

Attached: 1565281273160.png (754x909, 747K)

So comics
Such cartoons

Even then. Unless it becomes a publicly owned medium, they still can do that because of private enterprise rights (which don't account for size or reach). If I get banned from Yea Forums for expressing an opinion, I can't just sue Hiroyuki yo let me in again because the site is his and he can do whatever he pleases. Same if I get banned from a eastern seaboard gamelan enthusiast forum with 10 posters. Size has nothing to do with it and in fact, it's the monopoly that a few companies have been allowed to obtain the real problem here, because a decade ago we had dozens of prominent sites to use for all sorts of opinions, but those got cannibalized by economic interests, pushed off the market and bought out.

A platform is not responsible for what people say on it user. The phone companies aren't held responsible for a terrorist attack planned on it.

I agree with the removal of corporations

No, they're banning people they label as Nazis. Big difference.

Even then, if they were actually concerned about purging their forums of followers of murderous ideologies, they'd ban communists (and to a lesser extent) all the flavors of anarchist, left and right, too.

Some actually would, but I wouldn't. Not the guy you asked btw.

I don't even like /pol/. I just hate seeing newfags screw up with simple shit like this. In fact, it is usually /pol/ocks to make that mistake.

DESPITE

Attached: 1566745812065.jpg (784x767, 70K)

Nazis are equal to communists because nazis hate non-white people and communists like poor people

Not our fault Mao was mentally retarded

Uuuh yeah this man is kinda based

So you both want corporations to be removed, and support corporation's rights pick to discriminate based on belief. I have to say, your world view is starting to sound inconsistent.
Why not? It seems to me that any argument you put forward would also apply to corporations deplatforming based on beliefs.

>You retweeted
Can't imagine how cringe-worthy your timeline must be.

why?

>both me

He is correct in that he is clarifying the protections provided by the First Amendment, to a public that very frequently seems to get it wrong.
He neglects the dangers of 'showing you the door' in a global environment where there is no next town or state to pack up to, and the potential for extrajudicial elimination of rights vis a vis "social credit scores" etc.

TLDR you should all be like rich people and retreat into your country clubs if the riff Raff are getting you down

You're just telling me what the world is like. I'm sure you're right, but that's not a moral justification.

Nazis are equal to communists because Nazis slaughtered millions and commies slaughtered millions.

>Not our fault Mao was mentally retarded
Then it's not the Nazi's fault that Hitler was retarded ;^)

Using twitter to begin with, especially for politics, is already top-tier cringy.

I.m in the opinion that corporations do not have our best interests in mind a good chunk of the time and maybe they could use some regulation, but this is counter to the views of many sides.

Nazism is based in hate and started a genocide. How was Communism like that again?

...

>they label as Nazis
Well, yes. The moment you say companies have a moral obligation to act for the greater good, then somebody has to be the arbiter of what “the greater good” means. You just think your “greater good” is better than “their greater good”.
It’s their servers, why should they listen to you?

This.
Twitter is only good for porn, and it's TERRIBLE for porn.

Nah, I'm just reposting a screenshot someone else took. Look at those bats, though.

Putting all the power with a single party or group is a recipe for disaster, no matter what 'ism you dress it up in