Maybe make Protecting free speech part our governments highest law.
Maybe we could amend the law. Seriously.
Lots of people love to dump on the constitution as old and not relevant. But it’s meant to restrict government and protect people’s freedom.
Maybe we could amend the law. Seriously.
Lots of people love to dump on the constitution as old and not relevant. But it’s meant to restrict government and protect people’s freedom.
Right now you have the right to associate or disassociate with whomever you like (protected classes aside). In your altered future, the government forces churches to allow atheists and rival religions to be allowed to speak at the church, despite the desires of the owners and congregation. It would effectively be compelled association.
Trouble is when government gives out monopolies, or supporting monopolies they like.
Government currently closed side.
Government has chosen atheism as its religion. Very hostile toward other religions. Everyone pays for government school, but want to a Christian education, then you have to pay twice.
Government schools aren’t atheist - they are secular. They simply aren’t allowed to teach Christianity because Jews and Muslims would have the same “I have to pay twice” complaint you mentioned. Also, what you say about Christian education is factually wrong. There are plenty of places in the USA where you can find a Christian Charter school or use school vouchers.
All the cash in my wallet says otherwise.
You're gonna want to provide proof of that claim.
Subtle difference, as required by the topic.
I do not go and seek out others who believe in the lack of a diety to associate and grow together.
I don't go on to claim wars over the land holy to my belief of no diety.
I don't go on to terrorize my children and tell them they are unloved because they're born in a way that offends my belief in the lack of a diety.
I don't go on to terrorize my neighbors and tell them they are unloved because they offend my belief in the lack of a diety.
I don't go to other people who have different beliefs and tell them they are wrong due to their belief in a diety. And that my belief is the only way they can be saved.
Atheism is NOT a religion, it is not a system of beliefs in any meaningfully comparable way. You can rearrange words all you want, but the difference in result (not word choice) is anything but subtle.
My intention is not to paint with a wide brush, just to demonstrate that everyone has beliefs, and they manifest in different ways.
>>>>I don't go to a building and dance and sing to my belief of no diety. ( I believe seculars call it a rave.)
>>>>>>I do not go and seek out others who believe in the lack of a diety to associate and grow together. (any number of activities can fall in this category in fact)
>>>>>>I don't go on to claim wars over the land holy to my belief of no diety. (I believe are referring to Bush/Obama nation-building)
>>>>>> I don't go on to terrorize my children and tell them they are unloved because they're born in a way that offends my belief in the lack of a diety. (I believe you are referring to the secular terrorism, that is human-to-human, i.e. calling others "Deplorables" )
>>>>>I don't go on to terrorize my neighbors and tell them they are unloved because they offend my belief in the lack of a diety. (see above)
>>>>>I don't go to other people who have different beliefs and tell them they are wrong due to their belief in a diety. And that my belief is the only way they can be saved. (I believe there is no need to say X is wrong when instead they resort to shut them up #cancelculture)
Atheism is not a religion, but it is a belief system like any other. It may appeal to logical people, but that doesn't make it better or worse. Its just a different way to perceive the world around you.
No more implication than that. It is, however, actively a belief. It's not "I don't care" or "it's different to the one you believe in", or "I don't believe there is a god", it is "I believe there is no god"
Never said atheism was a religion, would never say that because it's objectively false.
I'm not a stamp collector. Does that mean I lack a stamp collection, or do I have a collection of a lack of stamps?
If I am asymptomatic, is there a lack of symptoms, or is my symptom the lack thereof?
It's one thing to not believe in unicorns, it's another to define yourself in opposition to unicorn believers, which many atheists do.
Adding 'types' in front of the word just continues us down the path of words not really meaning anything anymore.
Are radical atheists just atheists that act like dicks about it? Don't call them radical atheists, just call them dicks. Is a New Atheist one that does interpretive dance to explain their belief that there is no god? That's just an unlikely combination of two things, one of which is atheism.
Eg. I'm a radical grammarian (a dick when it comes to grammar).
Work with your government to have you taxes assigned to the Christian school. Here in Ontario Canada when you file your taxes you select if your child is attending catholic school and the catholic school board gets revenue equal to the number of people attending.
Do you not see how that's contradictory?
And what would it even look like? Would Hacker News no longer be allowed to have moderators?
So is it morally allowable to discuss <abhorrent topic> online? Should it be law to allow or disallow <abhorrent topic>?
Who decides what the majority of people consider to be abhorrent?
There is a simple solution to this if you don't like the way they behave: stop using their product, and recommend others do the same.
Of course, your not using it doesn't prevent others from using it if they want to, but that's freedom of choice for you.
social media posts can be a single person communicating with millions.
the damage per unit of effort is much much lower for the unmoderated phone vs the unmoderated social
Having a correct and accurate understanding of that carries a whole host of implications with it, e.g., it makes the tech companies' censorious autocratic behavior a violation of the natural God given human rights that the government is as prohibited from abridging as much as the tech companies that fall under it's jurisdiction.
What we are facing, just to continue the example to further illustrate the point, is the tech companies are violating human rights through their censorious ways and they are violating the Constitution, the highest law of the land. If the USA were still a functional and healthy society any court would issue an immediate order to require all tech companies to not violate the human rights that the Constitution prohibits any inferior jurisdiction (everything falling under the Constitution, i,e., everything) from violating. The US Code even provides penalties for the violation of the Constitutional laws that the Government and the tech companies are persistently and even maliciously violating on a regular basis.
It is rather clear that the far larger problem is the breakdown of fundamental rule of law (mutually agreed upon parameters for peace) and the replacement and encroachment of ever more rule of power (I will do whatever I want because I have the ability to make you). It will not end well one way or another if it is not fixed soon, and it does not look like those with the lust of power in their eyes have any intention of giving up anything.
And those rights are only to protect you from government actions because it’s the ultimate monopoly.
The first amendment does not give you the right to enter someone else’s house to spread your political opinions, just as the second doesn’t give you the right to walk in to their home with your loaded guns.
And stop trying to redefine the word monopoly. The internet is completely free and anyone can post whatever they want on their own web site.
Otherwise, it is not in fact free. Registrars can take your domain (look what is happening to eu domains owned by UK folx) and web hosts, are in part responsible for the content they host and can refuse to continue to do business with you.
Hell, even if you roll your own setup, the ISP you use can still choose not to do business with you, leaving your entire setup offline.
As I see it, the core issue is that with enough substitutes denying business to a person/organization, the customer can effectively be denied access to “the town square”.
In the relevant case law, the “town square” is only applied when there was only a single meeting space in the town. In that case, it was a private mall. Twitter doesn’t apply as a town square on the internet because there are plenty other places to communicate on the internet, even if it is not as convenient or wide reaching. The problem lies in the case where all substitutes for a town square all block you.
The solution historically was to insist on a common carrier designation for certain utilities.
Its a backdoor way around the constitutional restrictions. AKA the government can't restrict free speech or search your house everyday, but its going to allow everyone else to restrict and search your house for the same effect. Given the close ties between the leaders & .001%, the result is the same. It won't matter to you when you get charged with a crime you didn't commit whether the government was tracking your phone or the phone company reports your phone to the government. The result is the same.
Because where I live the government via corporations is scraping up "metadata" which includes people's web cams feeds, phone records, etc. AKA searching their house. And if you haven't been paying attention, as despicable as the speech is, political "speech" is being suppressed by large tech and media companies, and to a lesser extent what people actually say in public spaces, be that the library or the workplace.
And when has ever had a legal right to political speech at their workplace? Unless you have an employment contract which explicitly guarantees (such as teacher tenure) your employer can fire you for tons of reasons. Some states have labor laws that require “for cause”, but if you are talking politics at a workplace where that is not the core business, it’s not hard for an employer to argue your discussion adversely affects business.
I mean your basically arguing my point.
There is a reason Us corporations can’t disclose electronic search warrants to their owners, or why no one kicked Trump off their platform despite incessant rule violations until he was days from leaving, it’s called raw political power.