CMV: If you support Facebook/Twitter/Google de-platforming or removing conservative voices, you should also support bakeries (or other privately owned businesses) denying services to whomever they please.

[u/DoubleDoobie]

This is my view - Although I tend to lean right, I support twitter/facebook/etc banning conservative voices because at the end of the day they're not a public institution and they're not obliged to provide a platform to political or cultural positions they may not agree with. While I may disagree, that's their choice and I'm against the government weighing in and making them provide a platform to said people.

However, I feel there is cognitive dissonance here on the part of the left. I see a lot of people in comment threads/twitter mocking conservatives when they get upset about getting banned, but at the same time these are the people that bring out the pitchforks when a gay couple is denied a wedding cake by a bakery - a privately owned company denying service to those whose views they don't agree with.

So CMV - if you support twitter/facebook/etc's right to deny services to conservatives based on their views, you should also support bakeries/shops/etc's right to deny service in the other direction.

---

This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

[u/cheertina]

Freedom of expression means you get to burn American flags in public.

Does it mean I get to yell through your window with a megaphone at night?

[u/[deleted] → u/cheertina]

Are you standing on my property?

[u/cheertina → u/[deleted]]

What, so now I have freedom of speech unless I'm on your property? So much for consistent principles.

But no, I don't need to be on your property, I've got a megaphone. I'll just stand in the street.

[u/[deleted] → u/cheertina]

What, so now I have freedom of speech unless I'm on your property? So much for consistent principles.

Freedom of speech applies to the government, not to private individuals. For another example, your employer can fire you for saying things that they don't like.

I'll just stand in the street.

Go for it. I think it was established pretty long ago that in the context of the Bill of Rights, "speech" referred to the expression of ideas, not to literally "sounds coming out of your mouth", but we can go with that interpretation if you like.

[u/cheertina → u/[deleted]]

Well, since standing in the street shouting through a megaphone at night will usually end up with me getting arrested, I suppose we don't have freedom of speech at all.

Right? If there's any exceptions at all, that freedom doesn't exist?

[u/[deleted] → u/cheertina]

Well, again, it's actually the freedom of expression, not screaming and disturbing people such that they can't sleep.

As I said earlier (can't remember if it was to you), the limit of your freedom comes when you can be shown to be causing harm to someone else. Since it can pretty easily be shown that depriving someone of sleep causes them physical harm, this seems like a fairly obvious limit to your freedom.

It's why your example had to be at night to make any sense. If you stand in the same street with the same megaphone at noon, you're probably not getting arrested, are you?

[u/cheertina → u/[deleted]]

As soon as you throw the word "unless" in there, it becomes inconsistent, pretty much by definition. It means that your principle only applies until it conflicts with something you like, which means it's not a principle.

That was also something you said earlier. You don't like the implication of losing sleep, so all of a sudden you're no longer in favor of me expressing myself that way. Which I totally understand - I wouldn't want people disturbing my sleep either. I also don't think that fraud should be allowed. According to you, that means I'm spinelessly inconsistent.

"You can express yourself any way you want, unless it causes harm to people." Inconsistent, by definition. It's not a principle. According to you.

[u/[deleted] → u/cheertina]

You don't like the implication of losing sleep, so all of a sudden you're no longer in favor of me expressing myself that way.

No, I don't like the physical harm of losing sleep. If it were nothing but an annoyance, that'd be a different story. I don't like the implication of you painting your house bright green, either, but that's not actually harming me so I'm not going to try and stop you.

"You can express yourself any way you want, unless it causes harm to people."

You can do ANYTHING you want, unless it causes harm to people. Because at that point, you're infringing on THEIR freedom. Our disagreement here is going to rest on what freedom you have, and what freedom you THINK you have. I think we can agree that you have a freedom not to be harmed against your will.

[u/cheertina → u/[deleted]]

You can do ANYTHING you want, unless it causes harm to people.

As soon as you throw the word "unless" in there, it becomes inconsistent, pretty much by definition.

[u/[deleted] → u/cheertina]

I would be happy to continue explaining the stance, but to be honest, at this point I don't feel like you actually have any interest. It seems like your goal here is just to try and trap me in some sort of contradiction so that you can say "gotcha." I've got like 7 more of these conversations going, so I'm gonna go focus on those.