“It’s okay to ban speech I find offensive” becomes “ it’s OK to ban speech deemed offensive by this committee” when it becomes policy. Then the committee becomes a target for influence or corruption, because if you control the committee then you control speech. This is bad whether we are talking about governments or corporations, if those corporations have monopoly or oligarchy control over platforms of discourse.

That’s why it’s generally a good idea to only ban speech which is threatening direct violence, or inciting violence, or other very specific things. “Ban fascists” is too broad.

Parler is just for Nazis?

The fact that a line could be drawn badly is not a great reason to not draw the line well. People who didn’t commit murder can also be convicted of and punished for murder, but that’s not a great slippery slope argument for never punishing murderers.

It's in fact a great argument against death penalty for murder, and such argument is commonly made.

That’s only an argument against the death penalty if accompanied by another argument for why the death penalty is distinct from other forms of punishment, otherwise we would conclude that all legal penalties are bad for the same reasons.

In both cases it's a matter of being able to choose whether to participate in a message you don't agree with.

Should web hosting providers participate in messages they don’t agree with by literally distributing those messages?

No, I mean AWS can choose to not host Parler, so why can't a baker choose to not make a gay wedding cake?

What do you mean? The Supreme Court sided with the baker.[0] So why shouldn’t AWS be allowed not to host Parler if the baker can choose not to make a gay wedding cake?

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court...

Gay wedding cakes don't kill cops.

Except that Nazis aren't a protected class.

In one case it's a message of love. In the other it's a message of hate. You're personally welcome to treat them both the same, but I think you'll find most of society will treat the messages very differently.

If you can't understand why I'd imagine you're going to spend a lot of your life being extremely confused, angry and frustrated.

(I can't see the flagged post that's at the top of this subthread so if this is a bit out of context that is why)

If the baker thinks it's a message of sin, then what? It's not like selling them a room at a hotel or any other standard thing. This is a custom crafted item and message that they are being asked to help propagate, and one that they disagree with.

What exactly is your point? I would hope a baker would treat someone who they feel is sinning by being in love with the "wrong" person, differently than they treat someone who is advocating for the elimination of an entire group of people due to their race or religion. ESPECIALLY given that the baker believes in sin because of their own religion...

The fact you're equating the two is actually disturbing.

The Supreme Court decided the baker doesn’t have to make gay wedding cakes.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court...

I’ll try an even more obvious example. Why can’t it be good to put murderers in prison, and bad to put innocent people in prison?

The difference being you do not get to choose your sexual orientation, but you do get to choose your political affiliations and violent speech.

You can also choose your baker, so find one who thinks like you do.

And when you can't because there is systemic bias?

The nazis are getting special treatment. If they were brown terrorists planning any kind of attacks they would be hit with drone strikes or held at Guantánamo.