Re:Are Facebook and YouTube quasi-governmental actors?
by dragonwriter on Tuesday August 07, 2018 @06:50PM
(#17711630)
> You can't discriminate on skin color, sexual orientation, etc. because society-at-large has decided those are qualities that you're born with.
No, you can't because society has decided you can't. Being something you are born with may or may not be part of the reason some in society support that designation, but its mostly beside the point. Religious or politocal affiliation is not widely viewed an immutable condition of birth and one is protected in the US and the other in at least some US jurisdictions.
Re:Are Facebook and YouTube quasi-governmental actors?
by MrMember on Tuesday August 07, 2018 @06:52PM
(#17711644)
Sure, I'm not saying these private companies should be forced to do business with someone like Alex Jones. But maybe some of these services shouldn't just be controlled by private companies. I'm kind of surprised that a government owned domain registrar doesn't exist, for example. If I want to register a domain name I have to go through a private company who can choose not to serve me as long as it isn't because I'm a member of a protected class.
Re:Are Facebook and YouTube quasi-governmental actors?
by anfilt on Tuesday August 07, 2018 @08:49PM
(#17712286)
There are plenty government owned registrars. Heck the gTLD .gov is pretty much a goverment entity. They even have policy regarding FOIA requests: https://home.dotgov.gov/foia/ which is they are exempt. However, good luck getting .gov domain. It probably is not happening unless your an actual government entity.
Re:Are Facebook and YouTube quasi-governmental actors?
by tomp on Tuesday August 07, 2018 @07:17PM
(#17711803)
In many western countries you're also not allowed to discriminate against pregnant women, or because of religion, both of which are under an individual's control (except if rape).
Re:Are Facebook and YouTube quasi-governmental actors?
by kingbirdy on Tuesday August 07, 2018 @07:23PM
(#17711840)
Because those are decisions we've collectively decided we should support people's right to make. There's not much support for the right to decide to be an asshole.
Re:Are Facebook and YouTube quasi-governmental actors?
by beaconstudios on Tuesday August 07, 2018 @07:46PM
(#17711961)
but there is - that's what the right to free speech is. As the old saying goes, popular speech doesn't need to be protected. Being "an asshole" is not an objective measure, so you need to draw a line in the sand between legal and illegal speech. Free speech is the line that says "you can say anything" except for a few specific cases that are liable to put people in direct fear for their lives/wellbeing.
That discrimination is not based on intrinsic qualities, though. You can't discriminate on skin color, sexual orientation, etc. because society-at-large has decided those are qualities that you're born with.
But it's perfectly within everyone's right to discriminate against assholes, if that's what they judge you to be.
You can try to change their minds, but there is no right or law that forces them to listen.
Furthermore, a person can't change their genetics. But they can change their attitude, personality, etc. so those are not intrinsic qualities.