Part of the reason we served was to allow people we disagree with have the right to freedom of speech no matter how stupid their views are. Banning hate speech (no matter how abhorrent) is a slippery slope.
Freedom of speech has to do with freedom from government censorship and prosecution; you can't force random private entities to help spread your speech.
edit: The cake case was due to state laws, though.
> No federal law requires businesses to serve all customers without regard to their sexual orientation, but 21 states have “public accommodations” laws that prohibit discrimination against gays and lesbians. - http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-gays-religio...
The government equally could adopt a law prohibiting discrimination based on advocacy of race-based violence in public accommodation as several state governments have for gender preference.
> Yet the government can force private entities to sell a cake to a homosexual couple?
Laws reflect human preferences, which are at some level arbitrary. Apparently, many states think that discrimination against gays is a problem that needs to be addressed, whereas discrimination against violent racists is not.
The law will always seem arbitrary to you as long as you are ignorant of it.
If I register "godaddysucks.com" with Go Daddy can they say sorry you cannot register that?
In China the government which controls the registars for their country would of course ban"wedrovetanksovertheprotestors.co.cn". Does not seem we in the USA should allow that sort of restriction here, no?
All free speech has to be allowed. The internet in the US is a public monopoly like power, etc (despite the current FCC chairs view). As a public monopoly the right of free speech for something like a registrar has to be enforced. This does not mean Facebook cannot enforce a terms of service as you do not need to use Facebook. But banning the public resource of domain registration which allows these dumbasses to put up and host their own site violates the idea of free speech as they require a registrar to exist in order to speak. It does not matter if we do not like what they have to say. After all you need not visit the site.
Banning Nazi speech in Germay has not resulted Germany being free of neo-nazis.
Hitler started slow, prohibiting the trade unionist. Seemed like a great idea at the time.... it's a slippery slope.
Education is the only cure here. Restricting speech only leads to more extreme behavior and opens the path for others to restrict what they do not like.
We already ban some kinds of speech, and I've never heard anyone complain about it. For instance, you can't stand on a street corner and try to recruit people to join ISIS. You can't threaten to hurt or kill someone. You can't show pornography to minors, or show anyone pornography that contains minors.
These are all very popular restrictions on free speech.
> These are all very popular restrictions on free speech.
A person can engage in any of the activities you describe. They will just be dealt with by those elected by the people under law established by the people.
Google, Facebook and many others are deciding what they feel you should see based on their own prejudices, identity politics, agenda-driven deals, control and manipulation of information and/or other factors.
It's a slippery slope indeed with no oversight, no means to defend yourself. A person, a domain... simply gets wiped from existence.
It's like AT&T monitoring phone calls (oh, wait...) and killing your phone service because of something you said in a group chat. Or an ISP monitoring your online activities (oh, wait...) and cutting service because you visited a controversial (but legal) site. Or a building owner tossing you out on the street because your politics don't align with his/hers.
We have laws. We also have agencies whose functions are to deal with those breaking those laws. If a domain is doing something illegal - let the law handle it and not your "well-meaning" Uncle Scrooge and his shotgun.
We also have laws against vigilantes. Are the Googles, Facebooks and others turning into information vigilantes?
No, they are the owners of major digital presses that other people would like to use. But they have the freedom to choose what to use them for.
You can say whatever you want; that is protected by free speech. Google can choose not to provide a venue and assistance to you in publicizing those views; that, too, is free speech.
Your freedom of speech does not entitle you to commandeer the resources of unwilling third parties to deliver your speech. If you want collaborators, you need to convince them.