Author Topic: Civil Rights & Discriminatorily Enforced Censorship on Platforms  (Read 52 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Thomas Key

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 36
The Internet highways are funded w/ government investment by We The People.

Platforms are public accommodations - users engage in interstate commerce & use it as a public square.

I will note : it is ironic how undoubtedly some (not all . . . again - not all) who might of not liked (*specifically the public accommodation part of) the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (mainly because of Big Government and freedom of association concerns) might see the essential value now.  And I think hopefully should.

The censorship via discriminatorily enforced policies need to end and we need to uphold free speech & Civil Rights.

Some will claim certain players are too "despicable" to be on public platforms and should have repercussions (what repercussions?) - were traditional media outlets playing the drumbeat to the Iraq war despicable? or the same politicians? or people that interview Charles Manson? . . . or pick your flavor - 72% of people believe the "4th Estate" is purposely misleading the pubic, is that despicable?

Many people have changed their minds on many things throughout their lives and learn via debate etc.  What is despicable? Who decides? Do they also believe restaurants can refuse to serve certain people?  To me that's despicable, just like platforms refusing certain channels.

Other thoughts :
A "Platform" Channel IMO should be innocent until proven guilty, get a fair hearing w/ both sides publicly heard in a speedy way (one week) and a way to atone if needed - vs - being lost in a algorithmic bureaucratic shuffle or by more malicious means.

2. if someone does actual illegal activities, it makes them easier to catch . . . and that's good I believe.

A final question to ask ourselves : are our values based on a system where : more innocent people are hurt or where more guilty go free?