Letters from House members to cable providers [pdf]

Post by bmn__ » Sat, Feb 27, 2021, 1:37 PM UTC

Jcowell wrote: post #600

bmn__ wrote: post #598

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is precisely the problem. The expectation is abnormal (for the modern age and standpoint of Enlightenment values) and harmful. Look beyond the proverbial horizon of contemporary America, and see that in civilised societies, the appropriate response would be tolerance at the very least, possibly an exchange of minds in the form of inquiry or discussion.

It’s ridiculous for the very least response for all ideas to be tolerance when there are some ideas that shouldn’t be tolerated at all. For example racism , by any means, shouldn’t be tolerated. Activists against racism shouldn’t be expected to tolerate the very thing their advocating against.

This is shifting the goalpost/improper generalisation, did you notice? Grand³-parent was about going "to a group of BLM or antifa activist protest and tell them you voted for Trump".

Post by omgwtfbyobbq » Sun, Feb 28, 2021, 7:44 PM UTC

jcranmer wrote: post #482

omgwtfbyobbq wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing I know of that applies to the First Amendment, but there are many examples where individuals and organizations, or even organizations in different levels of government, are held to different standards under the law. The standards for HOAs versus local government is a good example. Some states require that HOAs enforce code equally, but will permit local government to enforce it unequally because local…

> There's nothing I know of that applies to the First Amendment Citizens United. It ruled that a law banning corporations (and other kinds of associations such as non-profits and labor unions) from making campaign contributions was an unconstitutional abrogation of their First Amendment rights. When people fulminate against the idea of corporate personhood, what they're really fulminating against is the idea that cor…

I'm not so sure about that. There's a big difference between whether corporations have a first amendment rights and can make campaign contributions and whether their speech is protected in the same ways as the speech of individuals.

To be fair, even individual speech may or may not be protected depending on the circumstances, so corporate speech may also not be protected in certain circumstances even if SCOTUS always treats speech by individuals and by corporations the same.

Re: Letters from House members to cable providers [pdf]

Re: Letters from House members to cable providers [pdf]