Are products really free speech, though? That seems to be the core of their argument.
In Support of Free Speech
21–30 of 119 posts
Re: In Support of Free Speech
#22Good. I've never read a Breitbart article, but there are few things they could say that I would find more distasteful than censorship. Interesting editorializing of the headline on this post.
Refusing to do business with someone is not censorship.
Re: In Support of Free Speech
#23I wish more businesses would simply be that. A business. I don't want to hear about your moral superiority, because it's a race with no finish line. I don't care what a burger joint's position on world economics is, you sell burgers. I don't care what the tech industry has to say about immigration, you sell software. Nor Nike when they just sell shoes, or Coca-Cola when they just sell soda. Chick-fil-A shouldn't be selling traditional values and Oreo shouldn't sell gay rights. Shut up and sell your product. And guess what, it's far less controversial that way. Let people cast their vote, not corporations.
Re: In Support of Free Speech
#24Good. I've never read a Breitbart article, but there are few things they could say that I would find more distasteful than censorship. Interesting editorializing of the headline on this post.
> there are few things they could say that I would find more distasteful than censorship. Perhaps being supportive of people who have called for the extermination of black people and other minorities?
By your logic where does anyone that doesn't condemn BLM stand?
Re: In Support of Free Speech
#25The headline is offensively misleading. A boycott, or severance of commercial relationship, is not censorship. It's people using commerce to express their values, which is also a form of free speech. Unlike true censorship, which comes from the government, both parties are free to seek other partners in promoting their products or messages. Lütke's attempt to paint this as a defense of free speech is disingenuous, and his attempt to portray anyone who disagrees as a censor is downright dishonest.
[edit: "refuses to censor" seems to be a local modification to the original headline, which is definitely supposed to be against the rules]
Re: In Support of Free Speech
#26I'm so glad shopify has the guts to stand up for white nationalists and calls for American ethnic cleansing. How brave of them to hold strong against those whiny liberals who have gone too far calling for the shutdown of hateful rhetoric against non whites and women. Free speech means that you can call for the violent oppression of an group, and still be entitled to turn a profit on it. Truly American values.
Re: In Support of Free Speech
#27http://lifehacker.com/5953755/what-exactly-is-freedom-of-spe...
Freedom of speech refer's to a government's responsibility to protect freedom of speech. Private organizations are not held to that same standard.
This is why websites can choose their advertisers and why reddit can ban a subreddit.
Shopify should censor Breitbart.
Re: In Support of Free Speech
#28How freedom of speech has changed in ten years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freedom_of_speech...
From: "'Freedom of speech' is the concept of being able to speak freely without censorship. It is often regarded as an integral concept in modern liberal democracy."
To: "'Freedom of speech' is the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction."
Note how retaliation and censorship might no longer be considered an attack on free speech, if done by private individuals or non-government entities. Also, free speech is apparently no longer "an integral concept in modern liberal democracy".
Re: In Support of Free Speech
#29Being liberal doesn't mean that you block everything that the other side is doing. It's also about being open and accepting to others and their views. Shopify did the right thing here.
Nobody has the obligation to help fundraise for hate speech.
Re: In Support of Free Speech
#30I support their views on free speech, but as a matter of conscience, principle, and (more cynically) optics, they should donate all proceeds they make off of Breitbart or neo-nazi orders to civil liberties/rights organisations like the ACLU (which they mention in their post).
Sometimes I wonder if they might not literally be Nazis.
I didn't mean to conflate them, but I think it's fair to mention far-right groups in the same breath.