Why do Conservatives believe they’re entitled to a platform to spread their hate speech?

So ....just curious. You guys are against the free market right??wtf are you arguing about then? It's been upheld in a case before that privately owned public spaces exist. If your argument is pro-tech censorship I guess you're basing it off of a private companies rights, right??? So you support their right to association as being able to refuse anyone service correct?? Can I legally only hire white people now???

yet none of that can hold up in a court
kys liberal

Except it literally would you moron. You’d get charged with creating public fear, harassment or a hate crime you idiot.

It hasn't you nigger brain.

this

doesnt make it right however op, thats why the future will have a lot of incels, Jow Forumss ideals seem to spread like wild fire on youtube.

use hate speech as a tool, seek and destroy.

Fine. You think there isn’t consequences for your hate speech? Go ahead and do all of those things I listed then.
What’s that? You won’t do it because you know there will be repercussions? Aww. Guess you proved me right.

it does, theres tons of cases were hate speech was added as a charge. depends on the situation. It has held up in court in a few cases, specifically school, private property and sometimes public.

some states have laws that make it hard to prosecute but it has and does happen.

Same judge already said Youtube is private private with the Prager case.
If you want to put vids up, be like everyone in the 90s, pay for a server and do it.

>I am silly!

Furthermore, Hate speech started with farmers and religous folk because protestants coudnt keep their spaghetti and fire away from jehova churches/mormon/catholic ect THAN it was about niggers an spics.

>Makes claim of something existing
>Doesn't provide sources

You think there isn’t consequences for someone attacking another person because mean words?

the 2nd protects the 1st & a lot of people have lost their mind over it. xD

Because of the first amendment maybe

>Obama rules hate speech isn't protected
Yeh, king nigger said it and his word is reality!
Meanwhile, washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8a22d995867e

kys, tranny

You're about as intelligent as a kid in africa.
remember Jow Forums, in all fields.

I hope a nigger sets you on fire
foxnews.com/us/texas-man-duct-tapes-store-clerk-and-customer-sets-customer-on-fire-during-robbery-police

You can do those things freely but private places might not tolerate them. The argument is social media is a public platform thus censoring free speech is unconstitutional.

You and the artist of this comic are complete brainlets using strawmen to attack logic.

Based constitution. I wonder how lefty and commie deal with the fact that for staying relevant they have to ban every opposition. And a board build on free speech will always be right wing,

Free speech goes beyond the 1st Amendment. It's an ideal that you should be able to openly discuss opinions regardless of how controversial.
If your idea sucks then it will be countered with facts and logic.

The left wants to deplatform people exactly because it's not about factual correctness - it's about cleansing of political ideologies.

bake the fucking cake, you bigot.

>Obama rules

Kek, that nigger rules nothing, and I think the Supreme Court already ruled in favor of free speech, even among private companies

>It’s why you can’t yell FIRE FIRE FIRE in a movie theater

But you can? And it's obvious that you are allowed to, what if there's actually a fire?

> It’s why you can’t follow someone down the street yelling obscenities and slurs at them

You can't? Then there is no free speech in your country

> It’s why you can’t rant on a facebook post about how much you hate minority’s and women

But you can

>It doesn’t mean the rest of us have to put up with your bullshit.

It means exactly that though, you are not allowed to make someone stop expressing their opinion

So the internet should be a utility

"hate speech"

if you make something free it has to abide by the public rules

It literally doesn't. Read the terms and conditions faggot.

If only you knew how bad it really was

Electric companies are private too...

And usually owned by right wing people.

So I guess it would be fine if they stopped giving electricity to whomever they please due difference in political views? I mean nothing stops you from building your own windmill or solar panels, so no harm done.

Just saying.

I’m guessing this is the same as that communist video of kittens explaining guns...

I dunno, why do leftists believe they're entitled to every platform that exists to spread their hate speech?

I don't get how this is confusing for people. One thing that proponents of the free market keep saying is that companies are kept in check by customer complaints. It's completely in-line with their beliefs to boycott or decry a platform if said platform provided an imbalance in service that breaches contract. The distinction is that they're not saying they can't do it, but that they shouldn't if they want to keep their customers. That's how the system works.

you can smoke in your home but not public places

you can talk freely in your home but not public places

you can X freely in your home but not public places

the pattern, its you against them, no matter your gender, colour or creed, and they're working to ensure your home becomes public domain

See Marsh v Alabama for the analogous case.

In the specific context of the United States, there have been court cases in which a judge ruled that corporate owned public spaces like a mall constitute an equivalent to a "public square" and that the 1st Amendment applies there, even though somebody owns the ground you're standing on. The did this specifically to prevent companies from publically deplatforming people they disagreed with at the time, like war protestors.

I would argue that social media creates a similar corporate owned public space which must therefore be subject to the same 1st amendment protections.

"FIRE FIRE FIRE" isn't hate speech, it's a call to action for a stampede out of the theater. You can say "you're a nigger" to someone's face, you just can't say "someone kill this nigger" because that's a call to action.

user, I'm not saying you're unintelligent, but you're an absolute fucking brainlet and I guess you just forgot that the 1st Amendment exists, so I'll let this one slide, ok, champ?

Attached: IMG_2303.jpg (223x226, 15K)

They don't really deal with it, I don't think. Not really. It's the same reason they can hold both that memes from the right are targeted harassment, while harassment from their side towards the 'right target' is perfect acceptable.
Or why they came up with the magic bullet of 'power PLUS...' to justify talking out of two sides of their mouths on any -isms.
Or why they explain away disproportionate amounts of crime in black areas as due to poverty and socioeconomic factors while levels of crime are generally much lower in white areas of similar poverty.

Etc. They compartmentalize, rationalize, and hold on to any shred of tattered thinking so they don't have to face that their logic boils down to 2+2=22, so to speak.

>censorship
>being compared to hurt feelings

So let me get this straight

Leftists can't tell the difference between a basic human right that has been proven throughout history to be absolutely necessary for a free society to function.

And "muh feelings".

Top. Fucking. Kek.

It's like they don't actually understand what we mean when we tell them feels are not reals, so rather than deal they are screaming "I know you are but what am I!" like some five year old child.

Textbook example of an idiot proving himself wrong without intending to.

Attached: 1521526713072.jpg (320x297, 15K)

Except other companies will take advantage of that and provide their services to them, meaning those first companies lose profit.

The bottom line is that a private company can do what they want, if you don't like it find another company.

if those platforms would stop hiding behind being a platform while acting like publishers it wouldn't be a problem

Where in the constitution does it say incompetent niggers need to be given preferential treatment?

Not really true. Good luck finding another YouTube

This could make a funny comic idea.... Joey trade school; Joey is a rural retard trump voter, he spends his days turning off the democrat electricity for non payment. Could also have Tyron at the water department and his magical valve key.

I guess you're right for some markets. That's why monopolies suck.

>Obama rules
Stopped reading there. And a gentle reminder that Obama was born in Kenya and is not a natural born citizen and thus all of the acts his pretend-presidency are null and void.

Barrier to entry are not an empty meme.
Internet is currently in a state of monopoly thanks to the states not using existing laws.

heres a better question
why are only leftists protected from hate speech?

Big brain level thinking over here. your attempt at humor is shit.

I'm okay with companies deciding what's allowed on their own platforms. I was hoping other anons wouldn't go full blown retard and imply that the first amendment applies to private platforms.

Do it are there will actually be zero real repercussions. Besides a few cell phone videos that get 1000 views and a random nog who gets in your fact but doesent actually do anything beyond that.

T. Did it

You don't get to define what is hate.
One with such power would automatically be considered the oppressor, therefore he has to be overthrown by revolutionary means :^)

Attached: 1552124775831.jpg (256x287, 44K)

And where do you pay Youtube?
The mall gets to evict nonbuyers

Once you start censoring opinions, you cease being a platform and become a publisher, so those companies are not platforms, now they are publisher's liable for all thats published on their websites

I AM SILLY!

Neat, so your intent then is to falseflag and upload illegal material in your possession?

Bike cuck BTFO

Attached: 1540868429687.jpg (1280x720, 140K)

See. I would agree with you if i didn't already have 25 years of liberal dick all up in my constitution.
>muh freedom of association
Has only been applied to one side on subjective issues. Fuck em. We're going to get fucked by the government. Might as well fuck our enemies with it too.

pic related, sage

Attached: serveimage.jpg (1000x1000, 235K)

>Whattaboutisim

Hahahah like nigga just close your eyes hahah, go outside or something

Why do people share bikecuck's comics?

Attached: b73.jpg (561x560, 62K)

I don't need to, once someone says something libelous about someone else, because 'social media' companies are now publishing opinions, they are liable for whats on their platform. Party B from my exaple would then be allowed to add twitter/Facebook to the lawsuit.

>It doesn’t mean the rest of us have to put up with your bullshit.

Actually it does. You have the right to block or mute someone whose content you don't like but you don't have the right to remove their voice.

You aren't special.

It's like claiming that you want to own a house but the only house creating/owning business refuses to let you own one from them. There is no other option, they're literally the only house business in the world, every time someone tries to build their own house business that first company does every shady trick they know with the infinite wealth and power they control, due to their Monopoly, to destroy that business' chance of ever being a true competitor.

This is exactly how Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and all the other monopolies operate. You know there's something wrong when governments keep a business afloat (because they sell your data to them) or a company uses profits from other sub companies to keep another sub company from crashing because it's not profitable, it's because power is more important than money after a certain point, and what's more valuable than peoples most personal details, or a platform where you can shape and control exactly what people see and interact with without them ever knowing it's being done intentionally?

>Heheh I was hoping my fellow go- I mean uh anons wouldn’t fall for such a thing

Attached: 2501F1FC-C2EC-49A1-91AD-181317DCD303.jpg (1024x683, 116K)

>others have rights that you stand up for
>so I should have the right to violate your rights
Leftists once again miss the point.

Because hate speech is just speech you dont like. Grow up.

>I should be able to call my boss a stupid lazy nigger and not get fired because freedom of speech!

Attached: file.png (680x672, 291K)

No, companies CAN’T do what they want. (By the way this is thanks to YOUR party) if you run a service that caters to the public you can’t discriminate against people. See also fag cakes etc.

/thread

Political parties aren't a protected class.

>openly admits you cant counter their argument and need yet another safe space

Because those platforms are the public square.
Because under the law, those platforms enjoy the rights of ISPs to not be liable for content on their platform as long as they don't exercise editorial control.

>spam support for Trump, spam /ptg/, Trump has one of the largest discords dedicated to him
>Lol it’s okay muh board culture
>Mention Yang
>STOP SPAMMING Jow Forums BAN THEM MODS BAN THEM
Why is Jow Forums so blatantly hypocritical when it comes to free speech and censorship? You’re either for absolute free speech or you aren’t, you can’t just start calling something “spam” just because it’s an opinion you don’t like it that you see frequently then ban it, and at the same time call yourself a defender of free speech and cry when you get banned from other platforms

Attached: 8F12FF14-D800-48A4-9CFE-06E18BC3A6E2.jpg (728x1112, 442K)

>social media should be a safe space for me and my tranny friends
become an hero already

>Put up with your bullshit
That's exactly what it means. You don't have to listen, and you don't have to agree, but you cannot do anything to stop me. Your only lawful recourse is to speak back.

>Jow Forums is one person

>Gibsmedat platform! I'm entitled to it!
Found the nigger

These platforms market themselves as available to everyone. Most people have a faceberg or twatter account, a significant amount of public dialogue occurs there. "they're a company they can do what they want", while technically true, shouldn't be so. They maintain platforms that have become a significant contributor to both the media and governments; Twitter backlash is taken seriously by these hacks, so to cut people out of them is to silence people, prevent them from saying what they want to say. We see this in trump; 99% chance of losing because nobody factored in the people who have long since been cut out of (or never joined) the public dialogue on the internet.
Speech on the internet is still speech, and should be free accordingly

>make your own platform
>nu-uh
seemy jewish friend

>admitting to censorship
>ha! you're the retard!

They really didnt think that through, did they?

This. The only user who gets it, everybody

They can. However claiming that the market is currently free is bullshit. These companies work together with other social and finance companies to destroy any newcomers that pose a threat to their oligarchy.

>free market is a system in which the prices for goods and services are determined by the open market and by consumers. In a free market the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, or by other authority.
>free from any intervention by a government, or by other authority.

It’s not about our feelings retard.
It’s about completely censoring one side, the more logical side, of a debate on pretty much every big social network

>political comic "artist" mocking people for caring about freedom of speech

I love stonetoss. His drawings make me laugh

Keep politics out of your cartoons if you don't want serious analysis.

You’re a retard.

npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/19/533514196/the-slants-win-supreme-court-battle-over-bands-name-in-trademark-dispute

Attached: 6A78FFC5-1C8F-4422-B86D-B6BF2E0EF33E.jpg (1536x534, 138K)

>Obama
Nope