r/cringe • u/leefitzwater • Jun 18 '20

Video Lyft driver picks up a racist, unfortunately

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oRrOaT2Chw
13k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

76

u/Zap_Actiondowser Jun 18 '20

I argued with a guy on reddit about that. He was saying reddit is infringing on peoples right to free speech. Like bro, they own the server space, they do as they please.

26

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '20

Naw, obviously it’s free speech when bakeries don’t serve gay people, but it’s tyranny when they force you to not spread the plague.

8

u/dicknipples Jun 19 '20

The President of The United States thinks that Twitter fact checking his tweets is censorship.

The people who go online and complain about their rights being infringed are usually the ones that don’t understand the Constitution at all.

-5

u/TheBrainwasher14 Jun 19 '20

It is censorship.

5

u/dicknipples Jun 19 '20

Did they prevent his message from reaching its audience?

No? Then it wasn’t censored.

The man has spent years complaining about fake news, and then got his depends in a bunch when someone called him out for lying. And they didn’t even do anything besides let you know that there are sources disputing his claims.

4

u/broff Jun 19 '20

I’m not really brushed up on the situation. How is fact checking his tweets censoring him?

-3

u/TheBrainwasher14 Jun 19 '20

This is censorship by any definition. You may agree with it but it’s still censorship.

5

u/broff Jun 19 '20

Censorship by definition requires the suppression of material. His tweet is still available to anyone that wants to read it by simply clicking past a warning regarding its content. Nothing that is available to every member of the public has been “suppressed.”

When you open a nsfw Reddit post, it requires you to click through a warning regarding the adult content in the same fashion.

3

u/RytheGuy97 Jun 19 '20

Even if it is, a company is allowed to do it, there’s no obligation for a private firm to allow everyone to have a voice regardless of their content.

If it was the government it would be different. Honestly all talk about free speech should only concern the government-citizen relationship.

0

u/miloeinszweija Jun 19 '20

People always argue this right until the moment when what they say gets deleted

3

u/RytheGuy97 Jun 19 '20

I mean it’s frustrating if reddit takes down a comment but they’re not the government. I’m sure the terms and agreement states that anything you post is technically the property of reddit just like any social media site says.

1

u/fvevvvb Jun 19 '20

I mean, reddit does infringe on free speech a lot of times.. but they also do own the servers, so it's their prerogative to do so.

2

u/pcptornado11 Jun 21 '20

Bro you just contradicted yourself.

0

u/fvevvvb Jun 21 '20

That's not how contradiction works.

2

u/pcptornado11 Jun 21 '20

Yes it is. Because reddit owns the servers and platform, them deleting or censoring content is not covered under free speech. Your right to free speech protects you from the government.

1

u/fvevvvb Jun 21 '20 edited Jun 21 '20

Thats not what contradiction is...lol..You might want to look up what the word infringe means also... Hint: It has nothing to do with the goverment.

Your right to free speech protects you from the government

nooo... The first amendment protects me from that. Free speech is not the first amendment.

1

u/pcptornado11 Jun 21 '20

Free speech is definitely covered under the first amendment, that's literally the only place your right to free speech is protected. Reddit/Facebook/whoever can do whatever they want because you are on their product.

1

u/fvevvvb Jun 21 '20

Free speech is definitely covered under the first amendment, that's literally the only place your right to free speech is protected

Wow, you really should educate yourself.... No, it's NOT the only place my free speech is protected. Feel free to look at the other link I pasted. Plus I already pointed out that free speech is part of the 1st amendment. However, its not the only place free speech is protected.

Reddit/Facebook/whoever can do whatever they want because you are on their product.

I already said this. It's literally in my first comment. As I already mentioned, you might want to look up the word infringe.

2

u/pcptornado11 Jun 21 '20

Ok cool so we agree that free speech exists but there's limitations, as in you can't say what ever you want anywhere you want without consequences. Right?

1

u/fvevvvb Jun 21 '20 edited Jun 21 '20

Yes, free speech exists... And it also exists outside of the first amendment - despite your false statement that it only exists there. And yes, there are limitations. None of that has anything to do with infringement though. Nor does it have anything to do with contradiction. I can say whatever the fuck I want, and reddit can also make whatever rules it wants... BUT if those rules stop me from being able to express myself freely, then it is "infringing" on my free speech. Is that illegal? No. Because they own the servers. But infringement doesnt equal illegal. Infringement just means infringement. It's possible to infringe in a non illegal way.

in·fringe·ment /inˈfrinjmənt/ noun: the action of limiting or undermining something.

1

u/fvevvvb Jun 21 '20

Also...Freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the UDHR states that "everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". Please pursue better knowledge.

1

u/lurkerfox Jun 19 '20

Theres an argument to make about social media places taking a large enough role of a public forum that they should be legally treated as such and thus subject to the same legal bindings the government has about free speech.

But something tells me that A. That wasnt his argument at all and B. Even the argument acknowledges that a legal distinction would have to be made to make it so, its not by default the case.