WHen a Christian baker refuses to bake a wedding cake for two gay men the Feds rush in to claim the baker violated their civil rights, but when twitter refuses to allow Christians or conservatives to use its services it is NOT a civil rights violation thus making all pigs equal but some pigs more equal than others.
I wonder if Court cases will be filed using exactly the same arguments as with the Baker?
They are essentially the same issue, can private business deny service to a legally protected minority group or not based on their minority status?
This extends quite a bit farther than just the Baker practicing his religion with his business, it is an issue of forcing other people to live by your standards instead of letting them live by their own.
TampaRed
January 16, 2018 8:44 am
While Twitter is a private company that should probably be able to ban who/what content they choose,I would think that it should be considered fraudulent to allow users to send tweets but not allow their subscribers to receive them.
Hopefully someone will sue them and they will back off.
There was a court case back in the earliest days of the internet -the days of CompuServe, AOL, etc.- where a company that carried posted comment was found guilty of, IIRC, slander because it allowed slanderous posts to be posted.
Now the ruling itself is what is interesting, not the slander angle. Since the company engaged in censorship of posts the court ruled that since they censored posts with content they didn’t like they were personally liable for the content of the ones they allowed to remain the same as if they had posted it themselves.
Don’t remember much about it other than that, it was before newspapers and Courts began publishing online and it is a bit hard to find it without extensive research I don’t have the inclination to conduct.
TampaRed
January 16, 2018 8:55 am
Some have suggested that some of the big tech companies should be considered public utilities and regulated as such.
I’m not ready to go there but here is a short article,a 2-3 minute read,from Wolf Richter’s site about other types of public utilities.
They ask some good questions here along w/giving good examples of utility companies abusing the public trust.
“If Profits At Utilities Are Privatized and Losses Are Socialized,Should We Still Have Shareholders”
That’s one thing Trump has done that most people don’t realize, he’s forced everyone and every business or organization to show exactly who and what they are.
WHen a Christian baker refuses to bake a wedding cake for two gay men the Feds rush in to claim the baker violated their civil rights, but when twitter refuses to allow Christians or conservatives to use its services it is NOT a civil rights violation thus making all pigs equal but some pigs more equal than others.
I wonder if Court cases will be filed using exactly the same arguments as with the Baker?
They are essentially the same issue, can private business deny service to a legally protected minority group or not based on their minority status?
This extends quite a bit farther than just the Baker practicing his religion with his business, it is an issue of forcing other people to live by your standards instead of letting them live by their own.
While Twitter is a private company that should probably be able to ban who/what content they choose,I would think that it should be considered fraudulent to allow users to send tweets but not allow their subscribers to receive them.
Hopefully someone will sue them and they will back off.
There was a court case back in the earliest days of the internet -the days of CompuServe, AOL, etc.- where a company that carried posted comment was found guilty of, IIRC, slander because it allowed slanderous posts to be posted.
Now the ruling itself is what is interesting, not the slander angle. Since the company engaged in censorship of posts the court ruled that since they censored posts with content they didn’t like they were personally liable for the content of the ones they allowed to remain the same as if they had posted it themselves.
Don’t remember much about it other than that, it was before newspapers and Courts began publishing online and it is a bit hard to find it without extensive research I don’t have the inclination to conduct.
Some have suggested that some of the big tech companies should be considered public utilities and regulated as such.
I’m not ready to go there but here is a short article,a 2-3 minute read,from Wolf Richter’s site about other types of public utilities.
They ask some good questions here along w/giving good examples of utility companies abusing the public trust.
“If Profits At Utilities Are Privatized and Losses Are Socialized,Should We Still Have Shareholders”
Well,now we know who they are, don’t we?
That’s one thing Trump has done that most people don’t realize, he’s forced everyone and every business or organization to show exactly who and what they are.