As I've mentioned the purpose of free speech is not to allow any person to deliver any collection of words. The purpose of free speech is to allow people to discuss different ideas. When, and to the extent that, you prevent discussion of ideas, you are opposing the moral principle of free speech.
If someone were to insult my daughter they'd be communicating the idea "Let's fight". If someone were to tell me that they discovered my daughter were engaging in prostitution, not as an insult, but to talk about it with me, of course that would be very different. I'd want to know so I could talk to her about it and find out what was going in her life. The issue is not the words, but the intent. Insults aren't welcome in my home. Sharing important information certainly is.
I would have no complaint if insults were banned on Facebook, or people were prevented from being mean to one another. I would also have no complaint if larger accounts were subjected to harsher scrutiny than smaller ones. That's not what's happening though. Some people, with certain political ideas, are punished for nominally violating rules. This is an effort to prevent discussing these ideas and is, as I mentioned, absolutely a violation of free speech.
Facebook is, of course, legally free to violate free speech. That's their choice. Likewise, it's my choice to criticize it and point out hypocrisy to the extent that they claim to support the free exchange of ideas.
And do you believe me to be violating a "...moral principle..." by refusing the discussion? Or, more precisely, do you feel my daughter and I have a moral obligation to openly discuss such subjects? Are we "...absolutely violating the moral principle..." of Freedom of Speech by bouncing the loudmouth?
That reads like you said that there's a fairly high chance that his daughter is a whore. You should either retract or clarify, depending on whether you meant that or not.
Or did I completely misread this?
Is it your view that a man's property rights are inversely proportional to the number of people who covet his property?
In so many words - I guess. I don't think property rights are naturally extended to Facebook as a global communication medium even if the communication does happen primarily on their property. I suppose I should have written that in the first place! At the very least, respecting those rights is not the paramount virtue. I also believe that the claim "private property first amendment need not apply" is not, by and large, a principled stance when ostensibly the same mob eg cheers on the lawsuit against a bakery for not making a cake.
Sorry for the snark earlier.
>I don't think property rights are naturally extended to Facebook as a global communication medium even if the communication does happen primarily on their property...
Then that's where we differ, and we'll never agree. Apple and Toyota are still private property even if they sell and manufacture things all over the world. As more people covet an entity's property, the importance of protecting that entity's property rights becomes more important. Not less.
And, (to be honest, I had to google this whole "cake" thing), you again are well within your rights to refuse service to anyone if you are a members only service. For instance, Costco is members only, so they can even disallow blacks shopping there if they want. Please understand, I'm not saying that Costco has racial exclusivity clauses in its membership agreement. I'm not saying that at all. I'm just using that example to make the point that they would undeniably be within their rights to do so. Just as many members only country clubs do. It's private property. It's members only. It's Costco's rules. It's the country club's rules. Sorry rich black people, you'll have to golf somewhere else.
And again, the nicer the country club. The more people who covet it. The more people who want to use it. The more important it is for us to protect their property rights. Property rights and Freedom of Speech are very much the same thing. You don't really have one without the other. If you infringe a racially exclusive country club's property rights on some twisted notion of free speech, you are very much necessarily infringing the free speech rights of the country club.
Do you and your daughter kick them out?
Or
Do you and your daughter try to explain to them why your daughter's not a whore while you all sit in your living room?
It's a personal dilemma. I'll admit it.
But for my part, the guy's getting thrown out on his rear if he insults my daughters, significant other, or my mother or grand mother.
As a token concession, if he insults my father or any of my uncles, I'll let him have an, uh... "discussion"... with them while they "...work out their disagreements..." But that's not gonna end well for him either. They're all Vietnam Vets. The pissed off enlisted kind. Not the contemplative commissioned kind.