| Previous Post
Not trying to sound rude or provocative here, but I'm curious about everyone's sort of demuring when the question of whether to deplatform Rogan and constraining the larger conversation to an issue of rights. It seems like a red herring to me. In otherwords of course no one is infringing on anyone's individual rights (precisely) but the question is whether or not that's a good idea, not whether the various actors are breaking the law. There are greater issues of cause and effect, and of the motivations of some of the people involved.
For the liberals in the room: people absolutely have the right to vote for Trump I'm sure you'll agree, that doesn't mean we don't have very extensive conversations about how we think that's a very bad idea. When Trump runs again will we just say, "oh yes, they have the right to vote for whom they want. Nothing really left to discuss then."
With any political issue there are several valences to view it from. I'm curious in issues of deplatforming; I have to wonder why liberals are constraining so much of the conversation just to whether people have the legal right to censor.
cheers,
---the late great Donald Blake
|
You have the right to vote for whomever you want. That is the great thing about representative government, it always leads to the government a society deserves.
If you do not like a candidate you try and convince someone to vote differently.
If you do not like a platform or publisher you do not support them, and try convince others not to.
You can't preserve your rights by stopping them away. I admittedly take issue with Twitter's monopolistic practices, but regardless they have their first amendment rights as well.
There are plenty of words for people who choose their beliefs based on how their party acts, and the nicest of them is hypocrite. However, while I don't view those people as good for the process, and may wish they would not vote or take part in the conversation... and that is try on all part of the political spectrum...they still have those rights.
Remember, I made it clear I did not approve of Twitter's actions. I pointed out my disdain for Silicon Valley.
Voting, to your question, has fewer restrictions than the First Amendment. TO be clear, when I say restrictions, I mean things that literally cause harm, like threats and revenge porn not just harmed feelings.
Voting really only has restrictions for age, some forms of mental intermittency,and depending on the state felon status.
As to why the argument goes to legal right, most likely because the argument comes to people saying their freedom of speech is begin violated. Therefore, you already have to start by making the case as to why that is not the case.
The question is really a matter of nuance. But if a person uses blunt inaccurate statement out of the gate, it takes longer to get to the nitty-gritty.
However, I was not defending Twitter. I was telling Freekyle he was wrong. Again, he used a blunt and inaccurate statement by saying Twitter was not practicing anything.
I made it clear I did not approve of Twitter's actions. I was simply pointing out he was strong.
It was less a political statement as pointing out someone's ignorance on the subject. Less a political statement than being pedantic.
By the way, I am not a liberal, or a conservative. So... you are probably asking the wrong guy. As a former teacher of mines used to say, "don't touch the vodka in my desk." However, more on topic, she used ti say "when you assume you make and ass out of 'u' and 'me'."
