Even when governments don’t limit freedom of expression we do it to ourselves as can be seen with all the Twitter mobs.
But when the government says you can't talk about a thing, they can make you take it down everywhere. Only this is protected, and this line needs to not be crossed.
I little sympathy for people getting upset at being deplatformed - they can go elsewhere, and their cries of freedom of expression cry wolf to the constitutional issue of those in power doing actual oppression.
You only have the right to inconvenience yourself in support of your rights. Just like me or any other person. I don't have the right to put all of my coworkers at risk so that I can call some black guy the N word for instance. That's kind of the way rights work. You have rights, but everyone else does as well.
Anyway, how’s your comment even relevant to what I replied to?
GP: (implying) Twitter mobs can silence or even destroy people just like government silencing;
P: Just find another Twitter;
Me: When your career’s destroyed finding another Twitter is probably not the highest priority;
You: You deserve to have your career destroyed, because otherwise Twitter mobs will be angry with your employer and colleagues.
So you’re refuting what? If there’s freedom of expression no one’s job would be at risk. Don’t bring up “freedom from consequences”, murdered journalists also had freedom of expression, they only faced certain consequences.
NO. Your company is under no obligation to maintain your employment. Why? Because the owner of your company has rights too. You're not the only person who has rights. That's the whole point here. The First is for everyone. And they can do what they like with their rights. And you can do what you like with your rights.
We don't take away rights from Paul, because Peter finds Paul's rights inconvenient. That's not how the Constitution works.
And again, in the cases I was alluding to, people were only terminated because of supposed “public outcry”. Without “public outcry” the companies wouldn’t have done anything. You think they actually enjoy disassociating with employees because they made some remarks on Twitter that are completely irrelevant to what they’re hired for? Think again.
So, Twitter mobs have no obligation to listen to or associate with the individuals I was talking about. Exactly. It would have been great if they disengage and left well enough alone. But nope, they’re out for blood.
- You have a successful GitHub project.
- One of your key contributors voted for Trump
- PC police come and demand you kick said contributor off of your project for violating CoC because they went digging through his Twitter history and found a tweet with him wearing a MAGA hat
- You disagree and say it's his right to vote for whoever he wants
- PC police do everything they can do destroy you and your project because you have run afoul of their wishes
> PC police do everything they can do destroy you and your project because you have run afoul of their wishes
No one was trying to destroy the Linux Foundation, Linux itself, or the KubeCon conference.
I've seen people say they'll stop working with a project if someone else they don't like is working on it, but I've never seen anyone actually attempt to destroy the project.
Right, because they acquiesced to the demands of the PC police. Had LF stood their ground and pushed back against the PC police, there may have been protests, etc. that caused KubeCon to be cancelled. Never underestimate the power of PC police whipping up a righteous maelstrom on twitter.
Even if it did, I don't see the problem. People have the right to protest and say what they want about the Linux Foundation.
That's what living in a nation with the First means. People can protest you, even for frivolous reasons. I could go organize an online protest against Mattel because I want a Malibu Barbie with stripper heels and poles.
The Constitution doesn't dictate how I use my rights, it only says that the government can't interfere with them. That's the line that can't be crossed.
Now if Twitter finds my request for Malibu Barbie Stripper Heels and Poles ridiculous and wants to get rid of me, that's their right.
Why? Because Freedom of Association is implicit in the First. And Twitter may decide that my request for Malibu Barbie Stripper Heels and Poles crosses a line that it isn't comfortable with.
Finally, I fully realize that Malibu Barbie Stripper Heels and Poles is obviously a ludicrous and trivial idea that Twitter would not even bother banning me for, but you get the idea. Some social justice warrior might come along and be offended by it and go on a crusade etc etc etc. But that's their right is the point.
Guy, try to be reasonable.
Opposition to a political opinion, is itself, a political opinion.
What you're asking is that your political opinion be the only one that gets Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Association, Freedom of Speech etc. Because you are explicitly asking that people with opposing political opinions not be given rights of Freedom of Expression and Association.
You should lose your livelihood for having this political opinion is another valid political opinion, however distasteful.
However, there’s a big problem if you’re guaranteed to lose your livelihood when a handful of vocal individuals who otherwise have no associations with you whatsoever hold the aforementioned opinion.
Let’s just hope you’re never on the receiving end of it.
Too late. I joined up with the ACLU decades ago, long before there ever was a Twitter. So I've been a pariah for a long while and it doesn't bother me. The important thing is to maintain the civil liberties of each and every person in the United States.
I get the argument if it's their platform with their money curating the content their way, but many of these large platform companies, like Google, have received massive infusion in funds through the government, tax breaks, or subsidies, and nearly monopolized large segments of information exchange (search, video, etc.)
When you have so much material support going into these companies from federal and state governments, and then they behave a certain way towards our rights, you begin to enter a very realistic scenario where a proxy intrusion of your rights starts becoming a real thing, especially if that platform is one of the only few realistically available to use.
Except when those dissenting voices make credible threats to your person, family, and livelihood or libel and slander you at a volume that is infeasible to litigate.
> I little sympathy for people getting upset at being deplatformed - they can go elsewhere
Where can they go when all of the major social media companies share the same general ideology? This idea that social media networks are plug-and-play beggars belief. Or perhaps you simply meant that people who don't adhere to this ideology simply don't deserve to participate in social media; that it's a privilege and not a right?
> their cries of freedom of expression cry wolf to the constitutional issue of those in power doing actual oppression.
What does this even mean?
That you should have freedom of expression, but the twitter users should not have freedom of expression?
I feel like that's what's being lost in this discussion. The acceptance of the fact that everyone has rights. Not just you. Or just me. Or just the politicians. Or what have you.
But everyone.
Theres a huge difference between expressing disagreement with an idea and trying to ruin someone's life.
People are free to be jerks. That's Freedom of Expression.
If people physically attack you, that's one thing. That's crime.
If people tell your company they aren't going to purchase your company's products because you work there, that's another thing entirely. That's just Americans exercising their freedom to associate with whomever or whatever they please. That's them exercising their freedom of expression and speech. There's nothing in those actions contrary to constitutional principles.
That's what's important, that absolutely no one's constitutional freedoms be restricted.
Other Americans have their particular opinions. Which they are free to have.
My primary concern, or my opinion, is that all Americans are able to exercise lawful rights in support of their opinions without governmental interference. I am as supportive of the Nazi as I am of the Feminist in this regard. And the good news, is that the Constitution is equally inclusive. It ensures that everyone gets the right to express themselves, or boycott, or associate with, or ignore, whatever or whomever they please.
You may not think so right now, but this is actually a good thing. It really does protect you.
Say that you come across some guy on Twitter who said that Quake was a bad game. You click around and find out that he works as Big Company Inc and is probably the only one there with this personal opinion. You decide that Big Company Inc should suffer for hiring this guy, so you decide to boycott them. Now, you take your business to Huge Group Co. However, Huge Group Co has a whole floor of people who believe that Quake was never a good game, and they believe it strongly. But they never announce it. You should not be comfortable handing money to them unless your actual goal is to punish people for expressing themselves in places where you might happen to see it.
That point is orthogonal to may primary objective. Which is only to keep the rights to boycott quake, or like quake, or dislike quake, or feel indifferent about quake, open to all Americans. I don't care how they use their rights. I don't even care if they use their rights. I only care that their rights never be infringed by the government.
You're talking about strategies for civil disobedience. Which is great. It's just that strategies for use are a layer on top of your rights. In a very real way, the only reason you can talk about strategies, is because you have the rights necessary to freely engage in civil disobedience.
This, more fundamental, issue is my primary concern. That the right to any sort of civil disobedience be freely available. I don't care how people use those rights. I mean, obviously right. I mean, not to sound crass, but I don't even care if Nazis hide behind those rights. So why would I care if anyone else uses them? I just care that no one be constrained from using them.
I think a more correct sentiment would be that even when there are governments that don't want to limit freedom of expression, multinational corporations will still oblige those governments and influential citizens that do.