Voicing your opinion and then having somebody voice the opposite opinion is a consequence. People are entitled to say whatever the hell they want, but if that opinion is racist, expect pushback.
I'm a professional. It's my job to defend the rights and lives of Americans, even if they think my heritage makes me inferior.
Who knows, my redbean ass throwing down on their behalf against some zealous Antifa asshats' assault might be what straightens their worldview out.
He who sheds his blood with me shall be my brother, and all that jazz.
He's in the army, which he takes every opportunity to tell us about. Violence should only be used when violence is being perpetrated, and to defend ones self and others.
Talk to a recruiter. Have a clean record and decent grades. Take the ASVAB and get a good enough score to qualify for the greatest MOS in the regular army. Pass through MEPS, get to reception (fuck 30th AG). If you manage to not off yourself, report to BCT at Sand Hell, Fort Benning. Meet the standard and earn the title of Soldier. Then report to Fort Sam Houston for 20 something weeks of good training (you're Charlie Company or you're shit). If you're not one of the 40% who fail to meet the standard, try to get Airborne or Ranger. Then report to either your next school or your first duty station. Congratulations, you're a professional at arms.
Right, I still didn't hear a definition. Stating your opinion does not count as an action, as it is protected by free speech. Give me an action, a "racist action".
Speech 100% is an action, and people can, and should, be held accountable for the things they say. The doctrine of free speech is a federal issue, not a personal one; if somebody says something racist or hateful, then they can be called out on it. Also, free speech has limits, such as hate speech and inciting violence.
Free speech protects you from being censored by the government, and should extend to social media as well. This means that the person saying something racist is protected from legal consequences, but not social consequences. You can critique, disagree and try to change their mind, but you can't deplatform them, incite violence against them and try to make them lose their job. I can give you so many examples of where people's life got ruined for things they said online. That is unacceptable.
.
If you seriously think that if a person said something you perceive to be racist online (because people might disagree on what can be defined as racist), they deserve any consequences beyond being mocked or verbally opposed, you are controlling their speech -> censoring them under threat of losing something in their life -> becoming a fascist by definition. And before you say, if they incite violence, then that's what they will be held accountable for, not their opinion.
And hate speech does not exist. No speech is too hateful to be censored. The concept of hate speech is unconstitutional and directly opposes free speech on account of the government/SM censoring your opinion.
.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant. If you find an idea hateful, prove it wrong. You either succeed or you're wrong. In either case, things change for the better.
I think you're inferring something I haven't written. I disagree that social media platforms need to adhere to the same guidelines regarding speech as the federal government does, because that opens a lot of doors to governmental intervention and regulation that will betray the one of the core foundations of what a social media platform is. As for the consequences, I agree with you. Criticize, mock, oppose, do all that shit, but don't try to ruin a person's life. If they're racist fuckwits, they'll do that all on their own anyway.
But! To pose an example: if you notice a local business owner posting racist things online (such as not wanting to serve black people or something) then you can use your money as speech and not patronize that business anymore. You can also use your voice to highlight what this person has said, and others may take the same course of action. It's like the Chik-Fil-A thing...
Some people don't want to go their restaurants because of their political beliefs, and that's fine. You can also voice your opinion that that's a dumb ass stance to take against a chicken seller. Both are protected, and both are "right" depending on who you ask.
So we agree on most things here then. But please explain how the government regulating the ability of social media corporations to restrict speech wrong? The great thing about bringing the two under the same legal framework is that government cannot pass regulation that would restrict speech, and the same standard would hence apply to SM. So any changes would only reinforce the freedom of speech online, not restrict it.
.
I'm going to assume (correct me if I'm wrong), that the problem here is that regulation of this kind would mess with the free market, and instead of corporations with bad policies going out of business and being replaced with better alternatives, all of them would be restricted in the same way.
That would be a valid argument, if not for the fact that the existing social media is a monopoly. Facebook, Youtube, Twitter are the main three that come to mind. You know why there never is a proper competitor to them? Because the value of social media is based on how many people are using it, and people will never move to a different platform that the people they communicate with don't use, unless they are forcibly kicked out, or quit out of principle. This is why the big SM essentially hold the monopoly on online discourse, they are large enough to enforce rules that will gut free speech and cut out a significant chunk of their userbase, because no competition will rise due to how online communication works.
.
It's like if a phone company had policies on what you can and can't say, so they ban you from using it for saying something, and even if you find a different one, you won't be able to talk to the people you talked to before.
The use of social media is not an enumerated right provided by the constitution. People can say whatever they want, but nobody is required to give them a forum to say those things. Just like any other business, if you break their rules there will be consequences. I do think that the rules and guidelines of places like Twitter and Facebook are vague and unclear, but they are not required to offer their platform to anybody. If you involve the government, then you're forcing these platforms to make available to anybody and everybody their services. And a phone company can ban you for violating their rules, but it takes a lot to get that done.
The government "enforcing" free speech on social media makes it government controlled media, basically. It puts undue burden on the platform itself; it's one step from being twisted into digital fascism. If you don't like the platform, don't use it, but the government really should have no say.
There is a REASON why terms and conditions exist.
Also, you do realize you can talk to the people you want to in real life right? Or... through e-mail... or AIM... or a blog... or you could start your own social media platform...
Here's a thought experiment: I'm make a meme about someone I don't like, claiming they once put their dick in a baby's mouth because they wanted to know what a toothless blowjob felt like, then that goes viral. That person's reputation is severely damaged... is that free speech or is that a crime?
It's a fucking crime and you know it.
Yes, defamation is a crime. We know. Nice strawman.
.
Going back to the previous commenter. Yes, I am requesting them to offer their platform to anybody. Because if they are a platform, they are obliged to do so, and can only remove people from the platform for actually breaking the law. If they redact what gets posted online and select who gets to post, they are a publisher and can be sued for what gets posted on them. Simple as that. My personal suggestion is to give them utility status, like the phone company, which effectively brings them to the status of a platform.
Example: Charlottesville 2017
Who knows, my redbean ass throwing down on their behalf against some zealous Antifa asshats' assault might be what straightens their worldview out.
He who sheds his blood with me shall be my brother, and all that jazz.
.
If you seriously think that if a person said something you perceive to be racist online (because people might disagree on what can be defined as racist), they deserve any consequences beyond being mocked or verbally opposed, you are controlling their speech -> censoring them under threat of losing something in their life -> becoming a fascist by definition. And before you say, if they incite violence, then that's what they will be held accountable for, not their opinion.
.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant. If you find an idea hateful, prove it wrong. You either succeed or you're wrong. In either case, things change for the better.
But! To pose an example: if you notice a local business owner posting racist things online (such as not wanting to serve black people or something) then you can use your money as speech and not patronize that business anymore. You can also use your voice to highlight what this person has said, and others may take the same course of action. It's like the Chik-Fil-A thing...
.
I'm going to assume (correct me if I'm wrong), that the problem here is that regulation of this kind would mess with the free market, and instead of corporations with bad policies going out of business and being replaced with better alternatives, all of them would be restricted in the same way.
.
It's like if a phone company had policies on what you can and can't say, so they ban you from using it for saying something, and even if you find a different one, you won't be able to talk to the people you talked to before.
There is a REASON why terms and conditions exist.
It's a fucking crime and you know it.
.
Going back to the previous commenter. Yes, I am requesting them to offer their platform to anybody. Because if they are a platform, they are obliged to do so, and can only remove people from the platform for actually breaking the law. If they redact what gets posted online and select who gets to post, they are a publisher and can be sued for what gets posted on them. Simple as that. My personal suggestion is to give them utility status, like the phone company, which effectively brings them to the status of a platform.