Free Speech????

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by sheltiedave

The right to free speech also comes with a responsibility to use that right in a manner that is conducive to the good of society.

The fact that we fought a war against the Nazis, that we fought a war between the states, and that the KKK represented, and still represents, one of the most evil of beliefs against ethnic minorities and religious minorities, makes this troika of hate groups a cabal that most Americans are happy to actively oppose.

You then mix in white supremicists, and white nationalists, and there is a powder keg of ignorant idiots ready to explode at a moment's notice.

There is little nuanced ground to walk on in this most basic of confrontations over the soul of American exceptionalism. Can we take a mongrel's stew of nationalities, accept each immigrant and allow their talents and abilities enrich our national future, or are we destined to again turn our sight inward, to become a slumbering giant that is fearful of international cooperation and moral advancement, content to ferment with our petty racial and nationalistic prejudices, as we shrink from any leadership commitments? I say no.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff and the military's service leaders have gotten it right...our nation must lead, and our military must strive to fight against racism, moral turpitude, and promote leadership and equality. There can be no shirking burdens because of fear or hatred. We can do no less as citizens.

It is interesting that many of the white nationalists argue that they are trying to protect their European heritage, rather than American heritage. They reject the reality that American heritage includes much more than its European component.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Actually, the question sought context. Is the harm caused by the possession of monopoly power in those industries as important as the harm caused by monopoly power over a ubiquitous platform for communication? The monopoly power exercised by Google and Facebook is indeed frightening, but so is the monopoly power in the other industries. If we are going to argue that there should be legal intervention to dissipate such power by Facebook and Google, it should be recognized that it is legitimate to intervene in the other industries too.

This is not what you asked and thanks for clarifying. Zero's questions were as pertinent and more clearly stated, yet you still avoid answering them.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Are you really too dense to understand the following (or are you being deliberately obtuse like Whell, simply for the sake of an argument)? You asked a question and I gave you a clear, concise answer...

I read your link. Nice double down on your legalese response. Maybe you noticed that my first paragraph was a bit tongue in cheek. Probably not though. I was going to use an emoticon, but didn't want to lessen the seriousness of the rest of my post.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by nailer

This is not what you asked and thanks for clarifying. Zero's questions were as pertinent and more clearly stated, yet you still avoid answering them.

Fair enough. Under the property laws that are now in effect, the social conscience is defined by the owner of the platform. If there is monopoly control over the available platforms for communication, then anti-trust enforcement should be an option. The current reality is that the anti-trust laws have been largely ignored for decades. If there is going to be renewed emphasis on enforcement, it should go far beyond Facebook and Google.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

It is interesting that many of the white nationalists argue that they are trying to protect their European heritage, rather than American heritage. They reject the reality that American heritage includes much more than its European component.

Please expand because I'm thinking you just said that many in the WSM are defending their German/Nazi heritage. A link or two supporting your assertion would be great.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Fair enough. Under the property laws that are now in effect, the social conscience is defined by the owner of the platform. If there is monopoly control over the available platforms for communication, then anti-trust enforcement should be an option. The current reality is that the anti-trust laws have been largely ignored for decades. If there is going to be renewed emphasis on enforcement, it should go far beyond Facebook and Google.

Thanks. The state of our antitrust enforcement is a good example of how far corporations and their politicians have turned back the clock.

Not a legal perspective, but doesn't social conscience vary by societal group and even vary among members within the group? To further this line of thought, consider that society's groups are not mutually exclusive when it comes to membership.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by nailer

Please expand because I'm thinking you just said that many in the WSM are defending their German/Nazi heritage. A link or two supporting your assertion would be great.

This is one example. I have seen many similar quotes.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by nailer

Please expand because I'm thinking you just said that many in the WSM are defending their German/Nazi heritage. A link or two supporting your assertion would be great.

Spencer advocates for an Aryan homeland for the supposedly dispossessed white race and calls for “peaceful ethnic cleansing” to halt the “deconstruction” of European culture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_B._Spencer

You should be informed enough to know this. Your comment again shows your deliberate obtuseness.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

This is one example. I have seen many similar quotes.

Thanks again.

Good to know my reading comprehension skills are still intact.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by nailer

Thanks. The state of our antitrust enforcement is a good example of how far corporations and their politicians have turned back the clock.

Not a legal perspective, but doesn't social conscience vary by societal group and even vary among members within the group? To further this line of thought, consider that society's groups are not mutually exclusive when it comes to membership.

This is making me late for work. I'm glad I'm my own boss.

There are issues on which there is a near consensus - although the consensus shifts from time to time. There appears to be a broad consensus that nazism and advocacy of white supremacy are morally repugnant. Members of many many groups - including it seems, captains of industry - appear to agree with that proposition.