The government shouldn't be censoring.
I don't allow white nationalists into my house.
At what point does "I" represent something too big for me to no longer have the moral privilege to refuse to collaborate with white nationalists?
Given that the Supreme Court has already decided that "wedding cake makers" are part of critical speech infrastructure, I think that Cloudflare, a service that hosts ISIS, pirates, and others, should be subject to the same restrictions as wedding cake makers.
They have? Source? And what's "critical speech infrastructure"?
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-gays-religio...
> And what's "critical speech infrastructure"?
That's the joke. If the government can force a cake baker to make a cake for a gay couple, why not force (excuse me, regulate) internet companies to provide services to those they don't want to provide service for? Surely, if your sexual orientation is a protected class as a consumer, your first amendment rights are moreso protected.
"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.
In 2012, he said he politely declined to make a wedding cake for Charles Craig and David Mullins, who had planned to marry in Massachusetts but then have a reception in their home state of Colorado. They lodged a complaint with the state civil rights commission.
The commission ruled that Phillips’ refusal to make the wedding cake violated the provision in the state’s anti-discrimination law that says businesses open to the public may not deny service to customers based on their race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. The panel ordered him to provide wedding cakes on an equal basis for same-sex couples.
Phillips appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing he deserved a religious exemption based on the 1st Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech and free exercise of religion. His lawyers say he refused to comply with the commission ruling while his appeal proceeded."
The government absolutely could, but there is currently no law banning discrimination of service against racists or ideology in general.
The notion of protected classes with regards to private (not government) discrimination is not defined in the Constitution, but rather federal and state law. The Civil Rights Act defines race, religion, and sex as a protected class. If you want the government to prevent private companies from refusing to serve racists, you'd need a federal law passed, so I guess call your local congressman.
Given that does society not have a right to say that "If you want to earn money providing a service then you should do so by providing that service equally to all people who aren't breaking the law"?
Not saying which side I fall, I'm not sure but I think the question is interesting.
Far to often we focus on our rights and forget that other people have rights and that society has a duty to us and we have a duty to society.
The wedding cake case didn't have anything to do with free speech, and a lot to do with discrimination: http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminate....
Do not conflate a bunch of causes just because you feel they are related. It doesn't do your argument any favors.
They have not decided anything, other than to agree to hear the case:
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/masterpiece-cakes...
To head off the obvious criticism: Yes, I understand the distinct difference between first amendment protections vis a vis the government versus the absence of those protections when dealing with other individuals and companies.
That said, I'm not a Nazi, nor am I a neo-Nazi, nor am I in any way sympathetic to their causes, but up to the point that their words specifically incite violence, I'll defend their rights to speak them.
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."
- H. L. Mencken
You don't want to let (for example) landlords to deny lending to people because they're gay, black, etc. Not as much of a free speech thing as a 14th ammendment thing
That reminds me a joke that someone made during a family meeting. It was something along the lines of "What? You are going to marry a COMMUNIST?" and "I don't want loyalists in my house!", both of which are outdated concepts nowadays.
While you are free to refuse entry to your house to anyone that you want, it doesn't change the fact that refusing access to someone who would otherwise be allowed in just for their political beliefs is a jerk thing to do.