Meanwhile, Libertardians are at it again
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
Comments (45)
sorted by:
Wasn't that baker forced to bake the cake?
Yes.
Not yet.
But had a series of lawsuits meant to destroy him
Has. There's another one ongoing over a satanist or tranny or something.
He was not do to religious freedom.
The government isn't going to limit the power of corporations that are used by the government to circumvent the Constitution.
Precisely this.
They have government contracts, they control the speech the government doesn't want you to use, and they do the bidding while Lolbertarians continue to defend them with "muh private company" as a safeguard against all of the anti-trust violations they've committed over the years.
Speaking as a Libertarian, this is the correct point.
These corporations are not private in the first place. They are public corporations first by their aspect of being publicly traded (and thereby publicly owned); followed by the fact that these specific corporations exist at the behest of the US government to regulate speech because these corporations are protected by anti-competitive regulations that guarantee their monopoly, and they are funded by a litany of public funds.
They recently admitted to teaming up with George Soros to prevent online radicalism. As such, the answer is either "Yes" or "effectively Yes, split the difference".
Is it a corporation?
Then it is my enemy.
~Tits~ Sole Proprietorship or get out.
That depends on who can buy ownership stake, and who is the purpose of the company serving. If it explicitly exists to benefit it's investors, then the effective owner might also be the public. But you're right, if we are talking about legal ownership, it might relate to who has an ownership stake.
Although, it's possible for the largest public investor to become the owner as well.
I guess my fundamental point is that they aren't the private property of a single person. Corporations are not sole proprietorships.
I see where meme of car analogies being terrible comes from.
Who owns your car if 30 people buy it from you because you broke up the ownership right to it in 30 pieces?
And not "private", in particular if those 30 people actively trade said stock (i'll ignore the legal side of trading share of a car, because it's irrelevant in horrible car analogies). But ultimately, the point Giz was making is that those corporations are traded by public, owned by no one in particular (in fact, often biggest shareholders of those corporations are other corporations or some proxy organizations) , and often receive government funding. Calling them 'private' is really an abuse of notation.
These people don't own the car either. They (each) own part of the car, a different thing.
Don't know, but i know down here a solid part of first degree murder cases are property dispute, so i suspect these people wouldn't know either.
There are "harassment" laws regulating the work place, limiting your freedom of speech in the work place as an individual because your work place is held responsible for everything that you at work do. If you so much as make a joke and it makes a female co-worker feels uncomfortable, a private business can be sued for not firing you. But now, all the sudden private businesses have a right to free speech?
And that is not even getting into the fact that private businesses' speech are constantly regulated by law.
Will private businesses get to ignore laws that say they need warning labels on certain products? I am sure there is alot of products that could sell more if those products were thought of as less dangerous. How about laws requiring the listing of ingredients on certain food products? I am sure some private companies would like some unhealthy foods to be thought of as more healthy and have unhealthy ingredients be unknown to the public.
I just don't see how it could be legal to impose these regulations on private businesses if they supposedly have free speech. If private businesses have free speech, how can they be regulated at all?
Lolberts are infiltrated.
The three points of the Libertarian Party triangle:
"Legalize weed now" dudebros
"Give us tax breaks" Big businesses
The CIA
You forgot public nudity.
Libertarians get the bullet too,
in MineCraft.
Mises caucus are decent but as whole they're pozzed af.
Too bad none of these Corporations are private entities, and are publicly owned, publicly traded, and publicly funded.
Corporations aren't people. Public corporations are legal constructions created and defined by government fiat. These ones in particular are also funded by the government as well.
Sit the fuck down, take your lips of the Koch Brother's dick, and then get back to me when you understand the difference between public and private.
Here's a video if you don't know how to read
Let's see here.
Have I missed anything?
They are also vastly different sized businesses, one is a private business and the other is a publicly traded international megacorporation, one claims to allow uncurated speech while the other reserves the right to make whatever kind of cake he pleases, one is a largely automated hands-off service while the other specifically had to hand craft your product, one serves a vital public function as a purveyor of information and the public square while the other is a bakery, and the violations alleged in each lawsuit are completely different circumstances.
You would be heard, if not for tech globalists deliberately muffling your voice.
The difference between what would ordinarily happen and someone intentionally interfering.
The point being that there are many, many cake shops.
Twitter is THE twitter. Google is so synonymous with Searches that it became a verb. The problem with tech is they have reached monopoly status.
Why would a business or any collective organization have free speech rights?
Doesn't everyone in the organization already have individual rights? Why would the business need rights on top of that? What does it mean for a business to have rights? Were they God given? Are all businesses created equal?
If it's a mere civil right I'm sure the judge cited the statute that grants those rights. Can we rescind that law? Because that's stupid.
Platform = can't refuse to sell the gays a cake
Publisher = can't force the backer to make a cake specifically for a gay wedding.
Thats the diffrence libertarian tards.
If they’re exercising free speech they clearly aren’t mere platforms, they’re publishers.
Ah, lolbertarians.
Hosting a platform is not the same thing as offering custom works.
Sadly, lolbertarians are right in this one.
The better question is how do you fix this natural vulnerability of 1A where government can just have off-the-table deal with "private" platform doing censoring work for the government?
Uh don't grant businesses freedom of speech, or any rights at all? I can see it making sense legally for sole proprietorships or even partnerships. But once an endeavor is operating as a distinct entity, it exists purely under statute.
If you ever read 1A, you'll notice it does not grant anyone freedom of speech.
I know what you're saying, but making a law that regulates what corporations can say or do does not violate "abridging the freedom of speech" IMO.
I didn't mean to imply otherwise. Civil rights have been assigned to corporations over the years by courts mostly, and some statues.
It does, however, violate letter of 1A (and whether it violates spirit of 1A is another question). Disclaimers on every product (a counter example someone thought worked in this thread) are not about speech either.
Libertarianism is a nice tool in a toolbox. Its a wonderful philosophy for the long term. If the Articles of Confederation showed us, having the government being Too Weak to step in is also a flaw. If The Libertarians of Texas are okay with second class citizens without access to the internet, fuck 'em. They only pull that one out a few times to wipe someone off the internet, but they'll use it.
Also the idea that Corporations have Free speech came in the 1936. Is there any shitty President in charge at the time who implemented many of the systems that ruined the country? Ah, right.
But is that really true? I was taught the same, but I'm not sure it isn't just more propaganda from the federally-funded liberal education system. Would the anti-federalists who lived at the time agree that it was flawed? Perhaps some of the problems and even "chaos" that a weak confederation were unable to solve are actually fine. It just wasn't ideal for the central banker class.
I want free (as in freedom) and widely available Internet, but that should be a state issue. Current abuse of the commerce clause wasn't imagined at the founding.
The baker was acting as a publisher not a platform.