Knights of Glory and Beer

Serving the online community since 1997

Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Page 20 of 22 1 2 18 19 20 21 22
#145748 - 01/24/19 06:24 PM Re: Is the left eating itself? [Re: rhaikh]  
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,295
Sini Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
Sini  Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
**

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,295
Originally Posted by rhaikh
As I said before, I think ...


Surprisingly, I can agree with most of what you say as a possible workable solution. Protected class for political views and then establish case law that hopefully make it less ambiguous. However, some of reasoning in your argument doesn't sit well with me.

Originally Posted by rhaikh
For example, holding Nazi ideology clearly conflicts with the anti-discrimination rights of others.


You are trying to sneak-in "speech is violence" trope. Holding any ideology doesn't conflict with anything. Acting on some ideologies may conflict with rights of others.

Originally Posted by rhaikh
If I were making the rules today, I'd probably throw it out, along with religious protection. I think the necessity for anti-discrimination based on religion, in this century, is mostly covered under race/ethnicity.


This made me cringe, because I think you are trying to sneak in "Islam is a race" argument in here. Can you clarify why you think religion "is mostly covered under race/ethnicity"? Personally, I don't like religion as a protected class, but I absolutely understand why this is necessary evil. It is needed to stop people from trying to shit on each other's heads over who has authoritative version of bearded man in the sky.


#145749 - 01/24/19 09:18 PM Re: Is the left eating itself? [Re: Sini]  
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 783
rhaikh Offline
KGB Champion - Taco Salad
rhaikh  Offline
KGB Champion - Taco Salad
***

Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 783
Portland, OR
Originally Posted by Sini
You are trying to sneak-in "speech is violence" trope. Holding any ideology doesn't conflict with anything. Acting on some ideologies may conflict with rights of others.


I fundamentally disagree. Holding political ideology can't be separated from action : advocacy. It is the nature of political ideology, you believe the system should change (or stay the same) to reflect your beliefs. To invoke protection under holding an ideology, I believe you are also invoking advocacy for that ideology. This is why I made a point to put a notch in favor of religious protection, because it doesn't require advocacy. None of the other protected classes require advocacy.

I feel the need to restate my conclusion, because you didn't seem to address it, unless you just agree with it.

1) Political ideology won't become a protected class because it requires broad support and I have no evidence that broad support exists or will exist
2) If it did, I think it would be reasonable across that spectrum to come with the caveat that it should instead be political affiliation, and as a requirement to maintain protection, that affiliation can't be interpreted as advocacy for discrimination against another protected class
3) In either case, the validity of your examples as demonstration of a type of censorship which could be remedied by your proposals is in question

Since I'm not convinced your stance here is totally wrong, I'm prepared to move on and debate your last contingency, but you need to at least attempt to counter these arguments first.


[Linked Image]
#145750 - 01/26/19 09:41 PM Re: Is the left eating itself? [Re: Sini]  
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,295
Sini Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
Sini  Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
**

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,295
1. You are trying to reframe the argument to be more favorable for your position. "How to do X" is related but different question from "Should X be done".
2. I think political affiliation as a protected status would be sufficient. If Nazi want such protection they could form a party and all register as card-carrying members. I disagree with your "requirement to maintain protection", as it can be easily abused to negate such protection. Let me demonstrate: democrats advocate for reproductive rights, this discriminates against religions that believe it is forbidden.
3. It isn't. Since you assert so, it is up to you to prove your point.


#145753 - 01/26/19 10:17 PM Re: Is the left eating itself? [Re: Sini]  
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 783
rhaikh Offline
KGB Champion - Taco Salad
rhaikh  Offline
KGB Champion - Taco Salad
***

Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 783
Portland, OR
I have some nitpicks:

Originally Posted by Sini
1. You are trying to reframe the argument to be more favorable for your position. "How to do X" is related but different question from "Should X be done".


Well, take the larger picture here. You're arguing that your examples shouldn't be "censored" and providing this as a necessary step towards your remedy. If this step can't happen, then you're not really offering a remedy, just an unrealistic complaint.

Originally Posted by Sini
2. I think political affiliation as a protected status would be sufficient. If Nazi want such protection they could form a party and all register as card-carrying members. I disagree with your "requirement to maintain protection", as it can be easily abused to negate such protection. Let me demonstrate: democrats advocate for reproductive rights, this discriminates against religions that believe it is forbidden.


Your example is flawed, democrats advocate for individual reproductive rights, which isn't equivalent to advocating for abolition of restrictions voluntarily adopted by religious individuals.

---

Should social media be regulated as public accommodation?

First, clear up this hypocrisy for me:

Originally Posted by You
Participating in social media is toxic, rots your brain, nothing on there means anything; therefore rational people like me should avoid it at all costs

Originally Posted by Also you
Participation in social media is a requirement for the exercise of free speech in modern society, to such an extent that guarantees for participation should be written as law

Quote
Sweating guy trying to decide which button to press


[Linked Image]
#145754 - 01/27/19 02:00 AM Re: Is the left eating itself? [Re: Sini]  
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,295
Sini Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
Sini  Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
**

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,295
If you want me to expand on what I said, then quote it exactly and in context.

Otherwise we are going to discuss your words in a similar manner:

Originally Posted by rhaikh
I

Originally Posted by rhaikh
am

Originally Posted by rhaikh
a

Originally Posted by rhaikh
Nazi


#145755 - 01/27/19 03:08 AM Re: Is the left eating itself? [Re: Sini]  
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 783
rhaikh Offline
KGB Champion - Taco Salad
rhaikh  Offline
KGB Champion - Taco Salad
***

Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 783
Portland, OR
I can’t be arsed. Do you disagree with the first statement?


[Linked Image]
#145756 - 01/27/19 12:58 PM Re: Is the left eating itself? [Re: Sini]  
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,295
Sini Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
Sini  Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
**

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,295
Details and context matter, in a way you worded it - no I don't agree with it.

In context of our debate of some random person that you brought up trying to construct false narrative that libertarians are supremacists, both Derid and I pointed out to you that person you picked is a nobody, but social media allows anyone to cherry-pick and manufacture outrage.

I went through this thread, here is relevant quote which you both misattributing and mischaracterizing:

Originally Posted by Derid

I think the overarching point here, is were it not for twitter giving a platform, no one would even know about the guy. His rantings, as ... and many other crowds would have an audience the size of their sleepy neighborhood tavern. Incidentally, twitters purpose in these cases seems to be helping a couple people who agree connect and giving a few thousand random people someone to yell at.


Last edited by Sini; 01/27/19 01:09 PM.

#145757 - 01/29/19 04:31 PM Re: Is the left eating itself? [Re: Sini]  
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 783
rhaikh Offline
KGB Champion - Taco Salad
rhaikh  Offline
KGB Champion - Taco Salad
***

Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 783
Portland, OR
Websites are not currently considered public accommodation, but exceptions to this exist. Case law suggests that operating a website in conjunction with a physical location (Five Guys, Blick) exposes you to public accommodations requirements for ADA compliance on the website. One could argue that the contingency for physical location negates this argument for something like Facebook, but actually I'm not going to argue that point, because I think it's pretty obvious that ADA should change to cover it.

However, we're not talking about a burger shack and the online equivalent of a ramp. We're talking about an organization whose primary function is to engage in expressive activities through its members. This happens to be the first part of the test for the guarantee of first amendment associational rights. The second is that forcing unwanted association must not significantly affect the organization's ability to advocate for their views.

Originally Posted by NAACP v Patterson (1958)
It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the ‘liberty’ assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech. . . . Of course, it is immaterial whether the beliefs sought to be advanced by association pertain to political, economic, religious or cultural matters, and state action which may have the effect of curtailing the freedom to associate is subject to the closest scrutiny.


My argument is that social media websites should be regarded as public accommodation, but because their primary activity is dissemination of speech, they are within their First Amendement right of freedom to associate when they uniformly apply their own guidelines for speech on their platform when terminating service. In any case arguing for exception to their guidelines, it must be demonstrated that the association does not significantly affect the organization's ability to advocate for the conduct they require, and that the state needs to have a compelling interest to allow the exception. The relevant case law is Hurley v Irish-American Gay Group and Boy Scouts v Dale, in both cases, anti-discrimination public accommodation law was superseded by the private organization's right to (not) associate.

Social Media websites not only have very explicit guidelines for conduct, but they regularly enforce them to maintain their ability to express those views. Allowing someone on their platform like Alex Jones, who they've identified as "engaging in or inciting targeted harassment," significantly detracts from their advocacy against that behavior. Additionally I think there is no compelling state interest to grant Alex Jones an exception from Twitter's policy on harassment.

---


So there we have it, a full pathway to remedy your censorship. All you have to do is successfully argue:

- 1. Social Media companies don't have first amendment freedom of association protection

or

- 2a. Those censored were terminated in a way that doesn't impair Social Media's right to express their preference for conduct (outside of class protection) under their first amendment freedom of association protection if reversed
- 2b. There's a compelling state interest in reversing termination (i.e. 2d)
- 2c. Political ideology should be a protected class
- 2d. Social Media's application of their abusive behavior policies is not uniform and therefore tantamount to discrimination on grounds of political ideology

All in the context of a lawsuit, because in any scenario, Social Media has the right to terminate at their discretion and the legality of that termination should be decided in court. As compelling evidence that those you suggest are "censored" are not, in fact, due remedy: Pathway 1 already exists, yet there is no legal challenge underway on behalf of your examples.

Pathway 2 is both wholly contingent on 2c and is also required to demonstrate what I've been saying all along, which is that they need to demonstrate that they've terminated these people based on discrimination against political ideology, not on abusive behavior. In court.

In absence of 2c, it's within their right under their freedom to associate to explicitly discriminate against political ideology. Even in presence of 2c, I'd say it's arguable that it's within their right to terminate associations which advocate for an ideology which is equivalent to advocating for discrimination, because that grants clear exception from the compelling state interest in 2b - The state would be deciding discrimination of one protected class over another.



[Linked Image]
#145760 - 01/30/19 02:40 AM Re: Is the left eating itself? [Re: rhaikh]  
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,295
Sini Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
Sini  Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
**

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,295
Thank you for taking time to formulate a thoughtful response.

Originally Posted by rhaikh

- 1. Social Media companies don't have first amendment freedom of association protection


Personally, I don't think corporations should have these kinds of protections. Otherwise we will find ourselves arguing meaning of "Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness" in context of AGI (artificial general intelligence). That is, does IBM Watson has a right to not be shut off?

However, US case law, as I understand it, states that Twitter does have freedom of association. Hence abominations like Citizens United.

Originally Posted by rhaikh

- 2c. Political ideology should be a protected class


I think this approach is most promising, however it does require new laws. This is not something that currently protected, hence Twitter can continue arbitrary enforcement of ToS against conservatives and it is not illegal to do so.

Quote
My argument is that social media websites should be regarded as public accommodation


There are other workable approaches. Regulating social media as a common carrier. Defining public spaces in digital realm.


#145761 - 01/30/19 02:59 AM Re: Is the left eating itself? [Re: rhaikh]  
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,295
Sini Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
Sini  Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
**

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,295
Originally Posted by rhaikh
Holding political ideology can't be separated from action : advocacy. It is the nature of political ideology, you believe the system should change (or stay the same) to reflect your beliefs. To invoke protection under holding an ideology, I believe you are also invoking advocacy for that ideology.


I want to come back to this, because I can hope to change your mind. For example, if I were to believe that Earth would be better off without humans, could this belief be separated from action of committing indiscriminate genocide? Before you object that this is fictitious, I have actually met people that hold such beliefs. They tend to be eco-types and pacifists. They are extremely unlikely to carry any kind of violence, less mass genocide. As their action, they tend to not have children.

So we have belief, and we have action and they don't line up. You are asserting that we should treat political ideology (a type of belief) as it were realized action. To me this is not a coherent position due to following: belief and action often diverge - say one thing and do another, one can act on belief to a vastly different degree - there is difference between true believer and hanger-on, the same ideology can translate to different values - conservatism is fiscal for one group of people and social for another.


Page 20 of 22 1 2 18 19 20 21 22

Moderated by  Derid 

Page Time: 0.037s Queries: 16 (0.012s) Memory: 3.1524 MB (Peak: 3.2621 MB) Zlib disabled. Server Time: 2019-09-24 09:27:34 UTC