- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- furiouslyinfuriating
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- furiouslyinfuriating
Bluesky Post (this was also posted on twitter)
I was hoping to find a statement from the aggressor, but it seems to be too early.
Bluesky Post (this was also posted on twitter)
I was hoping to find a statement from the aggressor, but it seems to be too early.
Of course! Big government needs to save us from our 1st amendment rights. Thanks so much. I don’t think I’d have figured it out without your help.
1st amendment applies to public spaces, not a forum owned by a private company.
The 1st is there so the government doesn’t step in and create laws prohibiting speech. It’s there to stop the gov from stifling free speech. It’s not there to give you a location to use free speech.
if it’s the government that is doing the censoring, against the will of both the users and the private company, how does it not apply here then?
Where’s that censorship? Show me, please!
“You’ll be under more scrutiny”
Ok, perfect, in the end they can’t actually do shit but reprimand then because it’s a private platform. Hell, have they censored Twitter or 4chan? Nope.
There is an implicit threat of government censorship there, even if it is ultimately toothless. And since valve is clearly not the one interested in increasing moderation, your point about the 1st amendment “not applying to private forums” is irrelevant
Seems to me it’s quite public because anyone can access their space by simply creating a free account. You’ve seemingly equated the letter of the law to the spirit.
edit: What the above poster isn’t legally understanding is quasi-public spaces. Ethically, they’re simply failing entirely.
That’s not the definition of the word public in this context. The sidewalk is public space, a shopping mall is private space, one is managed by the State, the other by a private corporation. Go and do Nazi salutes in a shopping mall and sue them when security throws you out and you’ll understand the difference.
There you go again with the letter over the spirit. You’d have us replace judges with computers.
They mall doesn’t have to tresspass a person that’s doing Nazi salutes. If you’d the faintest concept of the ideology of justice as implemented in the US you’d understand the difference.
I’m explaining how the first amendment works to you, that’s all. Freedom of speech doesn’t apply in spaces owned by private corporations, they can limit your speech in any way shape or form they want as long as you’re on their turf.
You keep explaining the letter of the law, poorly, to someone that understands both the law and justice system much better than yourself.
Don’t think you do buddy! Do you think you can sue a shop owner if they throw you out because you’re saying things they don’t like?
If you know so much about the first amendment and it doesn’t apply to Internet forums and platforms, how come you’re not rich from suing Twitter or something?
All strawman.
The shopping mall is not legally obligated to eject the Nazi.
But, you think government should force action upon the private entity because the majority disagrees with Nazis.
That’s exactly the opposite of why the 1st Amendment exists. Everyone else learned this when they studied why someone can burn the flag or why the ACLU supports Satanists.
I’ve no want for your nonsense. And, you do a disservice to others by repeating it. Go learn about quasi public spaces.