Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Amazon
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Blue Heeler" data-source="post: 3497675" data-attributes="member: 46613"><p>Amazon not allowing conservative groups on their servers is possibly within their rights. But their rights are not really the point.</p><p></p><p>The point is that they are limiting speech and/or limiting access to legal speech to those they simply disagree with. That is still censorship. </p><p></p><p>Is censoring legal speech OK? </p><p></p><p>Most people who are not fascists would think that any limiting any form of legal speech is wrong. Whether it is “shouting-down” a speaker, not allowing civil discourse and/or not allowing access to servers, that is censorship and restricting or eliminating (legal) free speech is wrong. </p><p></p><p>Sure ... they (may) have the right to refuse service just like the baker had a right to refuse making the cake for a couple that decided to be gay. Comparing the two is almost non sequitur given that the baker was not limiting speech. He was simply abiding by another protected right (for now) which is his faith.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Blue Heeler, post: 3497675, member: 46613"] Amazon not allowing conservative groups on their servers is possibly within their rights. But their rights are not really the point. The point is that they are limiting speech and/or limiting access to legal speech to those they simply disagree with. That is still censorship. Is censoring legal speech OK? Most people who are not fascists would think that any limiting any form of legal speech is wrong. Whether it is “shouting-down” a speaker, not allowing civil discourse and/or not allowing access to servers, that is censorship and restricting or eliminating (legal) free speech is wrong. Sure ... they (may) have the right to refuse service just like the baker had a right to refuse making the cake for a couple that decided to be gay. Comparing the two is almost non sequitur given that the baker was not limiting speech. He was simply abiding by another protected right (for now) which is his faith. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Amazon
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom