Would it be wrong in the case of the “no Jews” sign for people to do something like take to social media and organize a boycott of that business or should we just respect their right to not allow Jews at their establishment and move on?
Is Free Speech Under Attack in this Country?
- Thread starter sturg33
- Start date
Would it be wrong in the case of the “no Jews” sign for people to do something like take to social media and organize a boycott of that business or should we just respect their right to not allow Jews at their establishment and move on?
sturg33
I
Just you admit you made yet another awful point and move on
So if the market dictates that Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson’s views on certain topics/groups is unacceptable, is that not a failure of their personal brands? Shouldn’t we be celebrating the market dictating that failure?
sturg33
I
The market isn't deciding that. They are extraordinarily popular.
A university banning them is simply banning a speaker that was invited bc students said they would be offended. The students don't have to go. If nobody showed up to their speeches, they wouldn't get invited to speak.
Do you want to live in a society where any speech deemed offensive is simply banned?
(It just so happens to always be conservatives though)
Finally, nobody commented on the polling data I posted a few pages back. Why do we think you Democrats want to ban speech so badly?
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Literally no conservative tries to silence anyone. I hope youre ok lately.
Clearly not popular enough if the people that want to see them speak are apparently outnumbered not only be people who don’t want to see them speak, but people who despise them enough to protest. I’ve been led to believe that without government intervention the market will put itself at equilibrium due to people and firms working in their own self interest. If the boycotts and protests are working, is that not the market making a decision?
sturg33
I
Mobs work all the time. The loud minority is very powerful in this country, which is the entire point of this thread.
Your example is very flawed.
Shapiro can come on campus and speak and he will fill the venue. That is a market demand to hear his ideas. Even if 100% of people don't want to hear them, there is enough demand for his ideas that he is extraordinarily popular.
I know you know this.
If he was truly rejected by the market, then they should let him speak to an empty auditorium. If that happened, then less universities would be willing to pay him to come because there is no demand.
You understand, this right?
Instead, they've gone to censorship.
I feel we’ve argued in good faith enough for you to know I’m not actively comparing Ben Shapiro with a restaurant that excludes Jews, but humor me for a minute. Say the hypothetical “no Jews” restaurant opened and was so popular amongst a certain segment that it was doing fine. Would that change whether or not a “silencing” campaign is acceptable?
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
I'm curious about this distinction between a "private" business and one that is not.
Is an LLC a private business. Is an LLC with two or more partners a private business. Is a business owned by a private equity fund a private business.
And the second question I have is what part of the constitution allows for this distinction between a private business and one that is not. This may be a well-settled legal distinction that I'm not aware off. I'm not a lawyer. So I'm actually asking in the spirit of seeking some information.
This raises my actual question on this scenario, which is where social responsibility comes into play. If society decides Jews are the problem, who stops it?
57Brave
Well-known member
Sturg first to invoke racism/ identity politics into conversation today
in case anyone doubts the "left" lives by identity politics and spouts racism at every turn
Last edited:
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
26 states have passed laws preventing them from doing business with companies or businesses who boycott Israel. This is effectively outlawing dissent.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
I guess this—like the libertarian opposition to the Civil Rights Act—is based in the primacy of the free market, the idea that, say, the market would have eventually taken care of Jim Crow without government intervention, and that the wound to the liberty of the business owners affected is greater than the detriment to society of the discriminatory policy and to the individuals discriminated against.
Business owner refuses service to customer, thereby exercising individual liberty. Government gets involved via litigation. That’s bad, per your thinking. The market should sort it out.
In the case of, say, social media companies banning certain users or advertisers fleeing certain media properties, it seems like exactly that kind of market-based sorting is taking place. But you think this is also bad. I mean, I have some qualms about it, too, but I’m not sure that you’ve really addressed the tension between these two scenarios. I get that you think it should be legal. You seem to think there’s a societal cost to all speech not being respected. I guess you wouldn’t express it that way, but rather as an injury to the individual liberty of the speaker. But in one case you seem to be taking the side of the individual/entity who’s doing the discriminating, and in the other case, the side of the individual who’s being discriminated against. It seems like a value judgement about whose free speech and free association is favored. It seems like the libertarian absolutist position should be consistent—if one exercise of liberty on the part of a private entity (eg the “no Jews allowed” sign) trumps the injury suffered by those affected, shouldn’t another (“you can’t say that under our terms of service”) get the same treatment? I get that you think that both should be legal, but I’m trying to put my finger on why in one case we’re content to lean on the wisdom of the market, but in the other, you’re consistently hot under the collar about the market’s remedy. It seems like you’re espousing a consistent principle, yet applying a value judgement subjectively.
Business owner refuses service to customer, thereby exercising individual liberty. Government gets involved via litigation. That’s bad, per your thinking. The market should sort it out.
In the case of, say, social media companies banning certain users or advertisers fleeing certain media properties, it seems like exactly that kind of market-based sorting is taking place. But you think this is also bad. I mean, I have some qualms about it, too, but I’m not sure that you’ve really addressed the tension between these two scenarios. I get that you think it should be legal. You seem to think there’s a societal cost to all speech not being respected. I guess you wouldn’t express it that way, but rather as an injury to the individual liberty of the speaker. But in one case you seem to be taking the side of the individual/entity who’s doing the discriminating, and in the other case, the side of the individual who’s being discriminated against. It seems like a value judgement about whose free speech and free association is favored. It seems like the libertarian absolutist position should be consistent—if one exercise of liberty on the part of a private entity (eg the “no Jews allowed” sign) trumps the injury suffered by those affected, shouldn’t another (“you can’t say that under our terms of service”) get the same treatment? I get that you think that both should be legal, but I’m trying to put my finger on why in one case we’re content to lean on the wisdom of the market, but in the other, you’re consistently hot under the collar about the market’s remedy. It seems like you’re espousing a consistent principle, yet applying a value judgement subjectively.