There are elements of the airline industry that make it essential beyond simply it being too big to fail, or that we have simply built our lives around it being present.
You're not interested in making an attempt to use accurate language it seems, as in your next paragraph you're right back to calling them essential.
So what is the cut off point in terms of size?
Because it's both asinine and unworkable, social media platforms are global, which jurisdiction would this 'judge' sit in and what countries legal system would they work to in order to enforce this?
And your take on how to police it would make matters worse, not better.
Private companies are free to chose what speech they want to include on the platforms they operate, exactly because they are not governments. What you are advocating would have forced social media platforms to not only broadcast, but keep live the footage a racists hate attack this very weekend, one that showed the murder of numerous innocent people. Having to go through the hoops of asking a judge (working to laws determined by a government - and in many countries judges are very much political appointments) and obtaining a ruling before they could remove it.
We can debate that once we agree on the principle. Are you also anti-anti-trust like the other libertarian member?
The US, where it's established. Other countries can ban the platform if they don't like it or work out a deal with law enforcement.
Nope, nope and nope. You can't murder people in a public square, why would it be okay to show it?
No, we absolutely will not, to ask someone to agree to something that you refuse to explain the detail behind the core argument of, is the behaviour of one who wishes to act like an authoritarian. If you can't convince people with the detail of your position, and refuse to discuss the detail in order to convince people of its validity, then you have no position of merit.
This isn't an anti-trust discussion and I'm not a libertarian.
And your argument is that protects free speech? It doesn't and its laughably poor logic.
Because you are arguing that they should, that's a very real repercussion of the argument you have proposed, as has been explained in this very thread.
Again it's already been explained that's an unworkable approach.
Free speech being left exactly as it is, the limits that currently exist on it are already robust. what we need is a society that is better equipped to apply critical reasoning skills, that understands subjects such as Popper's Paradox, and a much more robust separation of church and state (and that actually applies as much, if not more, in the UK than it does in the US).
It's not rhetorical, but it was a set-up to an attempted strawman.
This is a core misrepresentation that you still have failed to realise you are applying.
The "real world" outside social media does not operate the way you're insisting that social media operate. You cannot force others to display your speech. If you could, yea maybe it would be a bit more cesspool. If I were legally forced to leave a graffiti swastika on my house, yea that would make things worse.
I wanted to take it step by step but ok. I already explained it somewhere. If it's large enough that the population or the economy will require time/money to adapt, or if it's influential enough to daily life, it should be regulated. I extend this to marketing as well but that's not the discussion.
Okay, thanks for answering. That's good to know. I would not waste time discussing this topic with a libertarian. I feel like mine isn't wasted now.
My proposal is literally applying free speech laws in public to Twitter, youtube, facebook, instagram and the others.
You keep bringing that up as if that's what I said.
A sidewalk operates just like social media. You can run into people screming the N word at you any day of the week. It would be fully legal and no police officer would be able to legally arrest them.
Hang on. This is about the cesspool comment. Yeah sure, not screaming. I'll do your technicality on your behalf. Yes, if you or a police interpret his body language to be aggressive and indicative of an iminent physical attack, it's considered "fighting words" and you may arrest him or defend yourself.
It's not an interpretation though. The First Amendment is one thing that really isn't as gray as some of the other Amendments. It exists to protect citizens from being censored by the government, that's it. Anyone else can censor you, you can censor anyone else, and it doesn't protect you from the consequences of saying what you want.
Because he was a hateful bigot, however it was the baker's right to refuse to bake the cake. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences.
If you attend the rose parade (or similar type of televised parade), you will inevitably see people right behind the parade doing exactly what you describe. Parading down the street with their disgusting signs. So I'm not questioning whether it is legal.
People are still displaying signs like these? It's not exactly a selling point for your business to advertise that you're a racist.
You are still failing to see the problem with this, the one which makes it utterly unworkable.
Why? If your argument was robust enough then it would be convincing, the issue here isn't the people you're debating, it's the lack of logical ground your argument has.
None of them are the government, and you can't even define the level at which they should be treated as if they are government bodies (and they shouldn't).
It's not a public square however, it's a private entity and location on the internet, so your analogy doesn't pass muster.
The far-right supporters of people who carry out those actions, and yes a large enough number of them do exist.
Because Twitter isn't the government, it's really quite simple.
And in both the UK and US cases (it's happened a few times) they were found to be legally able to do so (private business), and they faced the consequences of those actions as if it's the UK story you are referring to, people boycotted them as a result of their actions and the shop closed.
I'm not sure on their legality and it's probably going to differ in different areas, but I don't think they should be illegal at all. This is coming from someone who's Jew-ish too. However, if a business were to put a sign like that and they failed because no one wanted to buy something from a bigoted store, then it would be a major case of sucks to be that business owner.
