The challenge for many public forums is that...

[K9Buck]

...some folks try and succeed to get them shut down. I was on a couple of different forums where the expression of unpopular ideas was permitted. Someone got offended and contacted the web-hosting site and threatened them if they didn't shut down the so-called "hate" speech that was being expressed. The web hosts then shut down those forums. No warning given.

Freedom of expression is NOT a popular concept in the U.S. and is virtually non-existent where leftists rule.

 

[Vastator]

We just moments ago witnessed something much like that. But until the internet is deemed a public utility; it will be at the pleasure of those who own the venues, to determine what stays or goes.

 

[K9Buck]

We just moments ago witnessed something much like that. But until the internet is deemed a public utility; it will be at the pleasure of those who own the venues, to determine what stays or goes.

Should internet sites be required to abide by "public access" laws like physical stores must do? Should internet sites be required to permit unpopular (but non-violent) ideas to be expressed? I'm probably of the opinion that they should be held to this standard just like the bake shop that is required to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

 

[MaryL]

This is intriguing . Liberals are ever so freedom of speech-ish, they are so contrarian they would sell their own hangman the hemp they would be hung on...

 

[mdk]

We just moments ago witnessed something much like that. But until the internet is deemed a public utility; it will be at the pleasure of those who own the venues, to determine what stays or goes.

Should internet sites be required to abide by "public access" laws like physical stores must do? Should internet sites be required to permit unpopular (but non-violent) ideas to be expressed? I'm probably of the opinion that they should be held to this standard just like the bake shop that is required to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

No and either should businesses. You don’t have a right to my services, my baked goods, or to be hosted on my servers.

 

[Vastator]

We just moments ago witnessed something much like that. But until the internet is deemed a public utility; it will be at the pleasure of those who own the venues, to determine what stays or goes.

Should internet sites be required to abide by "public access" laws like physical stores must do? Should internet sites be required to permit unpopular (but non-violent) ideas to be expressed? I'm probably of the opinion that they should be held to this standard just like the bake shop that is required to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

Not sure... I think freedom of association should grant owners of both shops, and sites the right to allow, or disallow whomever they choose, for whatever reason they like.

But shop owners aren’t allowed that basic freedom. So I see no reason site owners should be allowed it either. If only because it shows an inconsistent application of the law.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Public forums are all trollocracies. The more idiotic, obsessive and outrageous the poster, the more replies that are generated. The more replies, the better it is for business.

The whole free speech thing usually boils down to individual poster and no forum out there applies the same rules to everybody. If anything, the obvious trolls get more leeway in their behavior than the more moderate, sane posters.

 

[K9Buck]

No and either should businesses. You don’t have a right to my services, my baked goods, or to be hosted on my servers.

I agree with you. Unfortunately, our society does not permit businesses to discriminate, unless someone is wearing a MAGA hat, then they can be discriminated against.

 

[MaryL]

lets challenge stuff, say sanctuary cities or motor voter laws. Amen .

 

[K9Buck]

...than the more moderate, sane posters.

Those are the posters that the left fears and bans the most.

 

[JLW]

I like this forum because it is a sanctuary forum.

 

[mdk]

No and either should businesses. You don’t have a right to my services, my baked goods, or to be hosted on my servers.

I agree with you. Unfortunately, our society does not permit businesses to discriminate, unless someone is wearing a MAGA hat, then they can be discriminated against.

One's political affiliations are not covered under any state or federal public accommodation laws, but nobody should be forced to do business with anyone aganist their wishes. Sadly, we are not seeing a large push to scrap all PA laws, just exemptions from such laws for those deemed 'more equal' by the courts or legislative bodies.

 

[K9Buck]

One's political affiliations are not covered under any state or federal public accommodation laws...

Correct. I believe that supposedly "free" people should be free to discriminate for ANY reason. The left supports discrimination, just not against segments of society that typically vote left-wing.

 

[Vastator]

One's political affiliations are not covered under any state or federal public accommodation laws...

Correct. I believe that supposedly "free" people should be free to discriminate for ANY reason. The left supports discrimination, just not against segments of society that typically vote left-wing.

Just one of many examples that spotlight the fact that we Americans aren’t really quite as “free” as we try to convince ourself as being. And a looong way from where we once were.

 

[mdk]

One's political affiliations are not covered under any state or federal public accommodation laws...

Correct. I believe that supposedly "free" people should be free to discriminate for ANY reason. The left supports discrimination, just not against segments of society that typically vote left-wing.

One of the many ways the left and right in this nation are the same. Many people are totally fine with discrimination, so long as they the dislike the group being told to pound sand, but it turns into a whole different fox hunt when they feel targeted.