Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ORDERS Companies MUST Allow Hate Speech

With how the Right Wing is working their hate agenda, It's starting to become that they're Declinists and we're the conservative-liberals in the respect of free speech.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-gNboIRgQs

You favor the law that forces private companies to be the platform for others and provide them the megaphone that the private company paid for?

i am specifically talking about free speech.
which "hate speech" is covered.
i am a strong proponent for free speech.

now does the government have the right to force a private company to engage in activities that they,as a company,do not support?

of course not.

should a bakery be forced to bake cock shaped cakes for upcoming homosexual nuptials?
or pay for birth control?
hormone therapy for an employee beginning their transition?

still no,
but yet here we are.

i do not agree with those who identify as lefties embracing this disastrous tactic of silencing those they deem "deplorable" (even though that may be exactly what these people are in some sense),or hateful,or racist or bigoted.

self-centered, sanctimonious, self-righteous moralizing does not impress me.

do you REALLY think this has ANY effect on those who actually ARE racist,hateful bigots?
all you have done is tidy up your little corner of the internet of comments/posts that you may find offensive,and driven those you find reprehensible underground and into the arms of people who are likely even MORE radical in their views.

this is so very dangerous on so many levels.
who decides what is "hate speech"?
who gets to have that power?
the government?
a corporation?
and what happens when the political winds shift and now YOUR commentary is viewed as hateful,seditious and possibly treasonous?

sorry man,but we are most likely going to disagree here.

i watched as my liberal friends rejoiced as alex jones got deplatformed on pretty much every revenue stream that man created.they were absolutely GLEEFUL.

i was f**king horrified.

not because i am an alex jones fan but because i knew what was going to happen.
and it did,and it has only escalated.
truthdig=gone
truthout=gone
counterpunch=gone
consortium news=gone

once power has been authorized,that tool will always be used and often against the very people who thought it a good idea at first.

i say let the racists post their racist garbage,rightwingers and their hyper-nationalism or the squishy left and their weaponized victimhood.let them post it all.

so we can ridicule them relentlessly,and maybe in the process change a few minds.
can't have free thinking if nobody is challenging your position.
it's like sitting in a circle jerk where everyone is smelling their own farts and calling it roses.

oh,one more thing.
make social media sites public utilities.
problem solved.

1/x "i am a strong proponent for free speech."
> So, when does continued hate speech become harassment? Harassment is illegal.

"now does the government have the right to force a private company to engage in activities that they,as a company,do not support? should a bakery be forced to bake cock shaped cakes for upcoming homosexual nuptials? or pay for birth control?"
> A bakery should have accessibility options for those they religiously disagree with just as much as a company is required to have handicap accessibility. If your bakery is religiously based, it should be advertised as such. Hate speech is not protected speech for consumers as you can be removed on the premise of disturbing the peace, harassing customers, etc. Same-sex couples are a protected group. Does the bakery serve atheists? Agnostics?
""The anti-discrimination laws are intended to ensure that members of our society who have historically been treated unfairly, who have been deprived of even the everyday right to access businesses to buy products, are no longer treated as 'others,' " Judge Jones wrote.

"hormone therapy for an employee beginning their transition?"
> An employees medical information is not the business of the employer -- even if they're providing the insurance. They either find a plan that covers it, or they don't.

"i do not agree with those who identify as lefties embracing this disastrous tactic of silencing those they deem "deplorable""
> Painting in broad strokes there, you should more clearly define under what terms the "lefties" label someone "deplorable." I am a "lefty" only because the right identifies me as such.

"(even though that may be exactly what these people are in some sense),or hateful,or racist or bigoted."
> From what I've seen, and this may not be true even most of the time, "the left" has provided means for the right to transcend these labels and has offered resources to help them stay out of these lanes. Out of frustration of (from what I see) having to walk on eggshells (it's actually just minding what you say), they got upset and decried it as "PC culture." This, coming from the party of "F**k your feelings." - The right wing, the people who shot first and made that their political slogan. "Make Liberals Cry" "Own the Libs." That sort of political behavior is intrinsically deplorable. Perhaps you should go read deplorable in a dictionary.

2/x
"self-centered, sanctimonious, self-righteous moralizing does not impress me."
> No one is trying to impress you. No one needs to, nor is it their responsibility to impress you. It works the other way around. That's what it means to be a model citizen. That's pretty egotistical to expect an entire party to work to impress you. I mean, what you said is intrinsically self-centered, sanctimonious, and self-righteous. Moralizing though? Oh yeah, we're big on morality. THat's kinda the point of PC culture - we put our best foot forward for others because we don't see how our words and actions affect others behind closed doors. Existence in a community is inherently born in ignorance.

"do you REALLY think this has ANY effect on those who actually ARE racist,hateful bigots?"
- Yes. They were silenced before and they weren't a problem. Trump gave them a voice and now we have normalized Nazis, and other white supremacist groups supporting GOP causes. It still baffles me how thinking that the message of your party being supported by these groups is not alarming.

"all you have done is tidy up your little corner of the internet of comments/posts that you may find offensive,and driven those you find reprehensible underground and into the arms of people who are likely even MORE radical in their views."
> Good, let'em rot.

"this is so very dangerous on so many levels."
> So is letting them speak freely. Normalizing hate has proven to be psychologically contagious and only escaltes itself in the exponential degree.

"who decides what is "hate speech"?"
> Not one single person.

"Who gets to have that power?"
> Not one single person

"the government?"
> The government represents the people. The people tell their reps and senators what they feel is hate speech. This gets brought forth as a bill in the house of representatives then once the bill is passed, it goes to the senate to be voted into law, then signed by the President.

3/x
"and what happens when the political winds shift and now YOUR commentary is viewed as hateful,seditious and possibly treasonous?"
> It would be interesting to see, how my position of Political Correctness in common discourse (which imgflip is not) would be viewed as hate speech. Or, seditious and treasonous. But then, Trump *did* try to label ANTIFA as terrorists. Funny thing, ANTIFA is not a group. That's like saying "Fascists are terrorists." Well, who signed up to be a fascist? Is there a membership ledger? Proud Boys, those guys are terrorists. III%ers, those guys are terrorists. With that, Trump did try to censor an entire ideology that would say "to oppose fascism is terrorism." Meanwhile, the right wing cheered for their own ignorance on the subject. So, what would I do in this case? Start reading journals from holocaust survivors so I can learn how to survive. Seriously. The difference between your hate speech and what you think I practice as hate speech, is that my speech does not punch at minority groups, I do not punch at people who've been unfairly disenfranchised because of personal attributes. I am, however, critical of the actions of political groups who espouse such doctrines that employ hatred and fear as tactics to govern. I do express disdain for these people and decry them for their effects at eroding our liberties that are enshrined in the constitution.

"sorry man,but we are most likely going to disagree here."
> We absolutely are, I don't tolerate intolerance. I am denouncing the malicious act. Calling out malicious behavior is not intrinsically malicious.

4/x

"i watched as my liberal friends rejoiced as alex jones got deplatformed on pretty much every revenue stream that man created.they were absolutely GLEEFUL."
> As he should have been. Did you not watch his trial? This man was causing damage to others. He was told it was causing damage. He didn't do anything to stop it. He continued causing damage. He was then warned there would be legal repercussions. He was issued Cease and Desist orders, but he ignored them. This man spat in the face of the law, and got *exactly* what he deserved through his misinformation on Sandy Hook. If you support this man and his rhetoric that Sandy Hook was a hoax (which he later recanted - however, testimony and evidence shows that he didn't even put in 1/10th the effort into making this known as he had to spread the lie. He even went on his OWN SHOW *DURING THE HEARING* and called the court a fraud, and the procedures a fraud, that it was all a show trial. This was brought attention to the judge. Get a f**king clue. Truth is indeed the end of knowledge. It is the end of knowledge and the start of ignorance. Truth is fact perceived through a biased lens. Anyone who uses the word "truth" I take very apprehensively.

"once power has been authorized,that tool will always be used and often against the very people who thought it a good idea at first."
> You're jumping to conclusions, then applying a slippery slope, then attempting to state it as a rule of thumb. This may be true in some instances, but it is hardly true all the time.

i say let the racists post their racist garbage,rightwingers and their hyper-nationalism or the squishy left and their weaponized victimhood.let them post it all.
> Am I to understand you think the right doesn't practice victimhood?

so we can ridicule them relentlessly,and maybe in the process change a few minds.
> Unless hate is riding on the populism train, which is how Nazi Germany started, and how Trump started. Don't even try to deny this, these two are objectively factual.

can't have free thinking if nobody is challenging your position.
> So, in order to think freely, you have to have someone oppose you? That's not free thinking, that's contrarianism.

5/5
it's like sitting in a circle jerk where everyone is smelling their own farts and calling it roses.
> I see it more as everyone is left to their own devices and think as they wish. If people want to group up, have at it. But we don't need to have an argument to be free thinkers.

make social media sites public utilities.
problem solved.
> If it's public, it's paid for by the government. If the government is running it, the government can't be held liable for what is said on the platform. If someone is comitting a crime through use of said platform, they need to be tracked and held accountable. The only way this can effectively be done is by registering as an authentic user - requiring a drivers license or social security number.
Lets see if people still want to practice their hate-speech then.

i don't think i have laughed that hard in quite a while.
thank you so much for that my friend!

the ironic thing is how much in your ramblings you were making my points.
right to the end.
made my point.
the very point you are missing.

you are an absolute treasure my friend!
never stop being you!

I missed your point, huh? Let's see if I have it right - you're a free speech absolutionist. The notion of "too much of a good thing is a bad thing" scares you at night and is the agenda of the woke left-wing mafia coming to take your rights. Free speech should be allowed, consequences be damned. Is that accurate? If not, let's take a walk and discuss why your point isn't clear.

First, you speak on what you believe about "free speech" that if we censor those we despise then free speech isn't free at all. You assume that because "free speech" exists it literally means "free speech." You fail to understand the context in which this right was written. That is, the ability to "speak truth to power" to be critical of your government without fear of legal persecution - to share ideas freely between other civilians. It isn't unilateral free speech. You can't make bomb threats and still be protected under free speech. Same with shouting fire in a theatre, or threatening to assassinate someone.

You counter my meticulous reply by deflecting with (in short) "lul, you missed the point, look at all that stuff you wrote point by point, and you still missed the point."

Let's talk about that.

If you're going to make an argument, form one that's cohesive, not some poorly written argument that reminds me of something an eighth grader would write that jumps from topic to topic, making appeals to fear, false equivalence, and irrelevant anecdotes. You touched on so many different topics that you were clearly uninformed on, I wonder if the whole point was to obfuscate your point.

If that was *indeed* the point, congratulations - you failed at communicating. Otherwise, you should (as I said) make your point more refined and cohesive.

Though, I think the most likely point was you didn't know who you were talking to and wasn't expecting to get hit with a novel - which I am known to do - and weren't prepared to throw down so you deflected your ignorance onto me, rather than dealing with the effect of your own ramblings to which I responded. Honestly, how can one miss the point if he addresses each one?

Also, since you're new to this stream, I will offer you a friendly warning: If you're just here to troll and be disruptive, there's the door. This isn't politics stream where you can just say something and then hook people for trolls for your own personal enjoyment. If you wanna talk here, talk. This isn't a circle jerk. You're still here proving that.

or point adjacent.

when i first came to this site 4 years ago,the politics stream was absolutely infested with actual nazis.
there was no private messaging,nor could you disable comments.
it was the wild wild west and it was glorious.

i had come here to understand the power of memes.
the mechanics and underlying messaging in such a small vehicle that could convey so much.with so little.
when i realized how many nazis and rightwingers occupied the space i incorporated my desire to understand encompass the radicalization of seemingly normal folk.

the results were pretty interesting,to say the least,but in that time i learned to perfect what i felt was the REAL power of memes.

subversion.

i use bombastic and antagonistic verbiage by design.
while simultaneously using templates of academics/historical figures etc, that directly oppose the posters original point.
i am,in short..mocking them..but also dog whistling to those who know who i am referencing.
now that people can just click the photo to see who that person is kinda takes the fun out of it, fortunately most people are too lazy to do that.

i also rarely seek to "destroy" or "defeat" anyone.
my goal is almost always to understand.even though i may disagree.
i have no issue with disagreement.
in fact,i embrace disagreement.
it forces me to defend my position.

which hopefully i have done here.
so thank you my friend.
i rarely take the time to do this anymore (far too busy) but as i have stated before.
i find much of your commentary insightful and salient.
and i felt you deserved the respect to clarify our perceived conflict.

We're both in the same boat, except... I never left. Well, I did take an 8 month hiatus at one point. That was after the second trump impeachment. I no longer cared, Trump was out, Biden was in. America seemed to be going in a positive direction -

Here we are, two years later, and MAGA is redoubling their efforts, actually restricting multiple rights to people in unprecedented ways, and really playing the criminal hand with a lot of their.... Non-sense. So I've always been here, refining myself.

__

And you're absolutely right, 2020 was a nightmare in that stream. It still flares up from time to time... but not anywhere near as bad as it was.

which is really what had me in stiches.
i really had no problem with your wall of text,i just didn't know who you were scolding so harshly.
but i am also guilty of blasting a wall of text,so no shade here.

you have made certain assumptions about me,based on very little,and this may be the crux of our conflict.my opinion,for what it is worth.

so, since we are walking and talking.
let me do my best to clear up some of the confusion and avoid my usual bombastic verbiage.

a few points i will attempt to clarify.
1.not trying to troll.
2.dispell your assumptions
3.how you unintentionally made my point.

let us begin.

So now that we've had our back and forth, I think these are the issues -
You're kinda new to this streem, you have been posting for a little while but you had some sort of hiatus from 2020. I treat new people in this stream with a lot of guarded trepidation and vigilance. So, that part is on me.
The other half of this, I hate to say it, is your grammar and your "voice" in writing. I get a great sense of condescension from you - near arrogance. Your memes support this impression.

which,in full disclosure.

is why i attempted (success? failure?) to completely change my tone.
i can be insufferable at times.
i tend to be a tad too confident of my own understandings,forgetting that my ignorance far outshines my understandings and knowledge.
which can be a hinderance when my true goal is to understand.

i do thank you for your honesty,and respect the courage it took to state it.
stay awesome man.

your first wall of text was pretty much littered with taking my short point and then expanding upon that to destroy a point i never made,and while i may pick a few to point out i think this one, in particular, really stood out to me.

> It still baffles me how thinking that the message of your party being supported by these groups is not alarming.

-my party?
what affiliation do you think i support?
did you just discern my political affiliations based solely on...what?
criticism? perceived disagreement?

allow me to shed some light here.i have identified as a libertarian socialist for almost 30 years.my "lefty" credentials have long been established.

>So, when does continued hate speech become harassment? Harassment is illegal.

so this is from your first comment where i was trying (and failing i gather?) to make the point that government has stepped in to force private companies to change their policies.
i am not as versed in quote snipping as you,and i find this bullet point exchange fairly tedious,but suffice to say we are discussing two separate issues on this point.

so allow me to clarify.

1.yes,i am a free speech absolutist,but i never made the argument that free speech was free from consequence.which i alluded to with "so we can ridicule them relentlessly,and maybe in the process change a few minds."

you make solid points in regards to the reasons some companies have been forced to bake those cakes or pay for those medical treatments,but that was not my point.nor my argument.
you then proceed to destroy the magatards,trumpists and rightwingers.
which..ok...bully for you..but again,not my point.

and then you conclude that particular tirade by MAKING MY POINT.

"sorry man,but we are most likely going to disagree here."
> We absolutely are, I don't tolerate intolerance. I am denouncing the malicious act. Calling out malicious behavior is not intrinsically malicious.

YES!
EXACTLY!
call them out.denounce from the top of your lungs.ridicule the cognitive dissonance,drag the illogic out into the light and let it burn.
keep things out in the open so even if you fail at changing the mind of that person,maybe...maybe..you can change the mind who is not a nazi..yet,but rather nazi adjacent.flirting with a radicalization because that person may be young or lack the tools and knowledge to realize the dangerous path they are on.

here we are in 100% agreement.

where we part ways is that you find it acceptable to ask the government to step in and silence these people.
force them underground.(have you heard of this neat new thing called the internet?) these people will find a home to re-enforce their twisted views,and allow them to fester.

which i will reiterate my point that this does NOT actually silence these people.it only serves to keep those people out of your pervue,and hence disempowers you,me or anyone to bring them to a better understanding.

my point is about changing minds.
disenfranchising only serves to further radicalize.
i could list so many examples but i will just reference the works of sheldon wolin or john ralston saul who have done it better.
you could even read the essays of eugene debs or rosa Luxemburg who are very eloquent on this point.

my fears are born from witnessing social media creating a severe bifurcation and compartmentalizing of the american populace.i could,again,list a myriad of examples,but we can use this site alone as a microcosm of this phenom.

it is my strong opinion that the only way to combat this constant barrage of hyper partisanship is to recognize that the american public is the most propagandized,the most surveilled.
go look at the front page of politics stream.
look at the front page of politicsTOO.
notice anything? it is blindingly glaring.

we,as humans,are tribal by nature.
and we tend to congregate with those we identify with,and the internet heightens this to an obscene level.
nobody wants their ideas or beliefs challenged.
but if our ideas cannot withstand even a modicum of scrutiny,them maybe those ideas were shit from the start.
and the ONLY way to challenge bad ideas or beliefs is if those who hold them are allowed to speak freely.

giving us the opportunity to change their minds.
we won't change all.
diehards are gonna diehard,but we will change some,and that is a positive thing to accomplish.

"Where we part ways..."
No, I don't ask the government to silence anyone - unless they are actually bringing harm to someone else. (Alex Jones.) However, if a social media platform hosts content, they can be held liable for that content. As such, it is their right under the first amendment, to choose not to host that content. As for the possible notion of censorship upon a bakery? I'm not asking the government to censor them. I'm asking the government to enforce its discrimination laws. Fundamentally, a Christian would religiously disagree with a Jew, or a Muslim or any other religion that isn't Christianity. But they serve them just fine. But when you have to put two men or two women on top of the cake? That's when they say no? Yeah, that's not okay with me. It's not like your name, as the baker, is on the cake. Find another artist to handle those issues for your store.

On a short note to de-platforming these individuals... You used the word purview... And how this would keep them out of it? Again this is a contradicting statement and I am confused by your wording. I digress. Sure, it can further radicalize some group, but the idea is to quarantine their toxic and infectious ideology from more impressionable minds who would adopt a malicious mindset. Again, this is the paradox of intolerance. Reaction to such extremism should be measured by the severity of the extremism and how fast the ideology spreads.

Ideas *can* be dangerous, but that doesn't make them bad. They're like guns - they can be dangerous, but it doesn't make them bad. We live in an era where the adage "The pen is mightier than the sword." could not be more true. We've seen people just by using populism and band-wagon groupthinking to manipulate the masses for nefarious (and for good) reasons. People on social media today get so caught up in their tribalism, that it's the goal is no longer being correct, the aim is now to spite "the other."

I won't ramble further in this reply except for this - there's more than one way to challenge "bad ideas or beliefs" and that is by getting an education. I recommend starting with Ethics 101, History 110, Religious Studies 110, Philosophy 101, and Anthropology 110.

one last point.

our lest exchange:

make social media sites public utilities.
problem solved.
> If it's public, it's paid for by the government. If the government is running it, the government can't be held liable for what is said on the platform. If someone is comitting a crime through use of said platform, they need to be tracked and held accountable. The only way this can effectively be done is by registering as an authentic user - requiring a drivers license or social security number.
Lets see if people still want to practice their hate-speech then.

YES!
EXACTLY!
thank you for agreeing.(we may disagree on the particulars,but we have over-lap here.)

what affiliation do you think i support?
> You tell me. I looked at your profile before posting and your other memes to get a feel for what you represent.

"first comment... ... 100% agreement."
Again, your point wasn't clear as it wasn't cohesive.
For example: "1.yes,i am a free speech absolutist,but i never made the argument that free speech was free from consequence.which i alluded to with "so we can ridicule them relentlessly,and maybe in the process change a few minds."" That sentence just burns my brain the way you introduce the second sentence just doesn't register. The content of it seems to be both paradoxical and superfluous.

I couldn't understand what you were saying through how you jumped from topic to topic. Each of those topics you touched on carry a lot of weight and their context must be examined - their conversations summarized to reach my conclusion. In that - free speech should be moderated. It has limits. It might behoove you to use less of a passive voice - avoid using pronouns when referring to subjects on making an argument. It may leave your points very ambiguous.

So, don't use "they" or "them" in reference to a group of people. Name the people you're referring to each time. Be clear and concise with all of your definitions or labels.