Hacker News Reader

Comment by teamk | Hacker News Reader

Its pretty insane that public businesses are forbidden from discrimination on most grounds (political views, religious views, etc) of who it employs, or who can enter their business, but its perfectly fine for FB, Google, Apple, Twitter, etc., to completely control the content of the conversation on their platforms.

It doesn't make sense that as a baker I can be forced to bake gay wedding cakes, or as a Restaurant owner I can't open a 'straight white people only' restaurant, but Social Media giants can basically purge any and all far right content.

View on HN

That’s simply not true. Without getting into left/right conversation, if you’re being disruptive at a restaurant, they can ask you to leave.

If you start using the inappropriate language at work, HR might have something to say about that.

Freedom of speech does not protect you against yelling “Fire” in a packed movie theater.

For some reason folks think you can say anything and there are no repercussions. That’s childish.

> It doesn't make sense that as a baker I can be forced to bake gay wedding cakes,

In the UK you're not forced to bake gay wedding cakes. You have the choice to bake cakes and not bake any wedding cakes at all. What you can't do if you're a business is refuse to provide cakes to people because they have (or you perceive them to have) a protected characteristic.

The situation isn't symmetrical at all; it only appears to be if you ignore or misrepresent the history of power and violence involved. The list of protected characteristics is small and political views aren't usually on it per se.

I'm unsure of what the exact legal status is federally and per state (although I've heard claims that social media giants represent de facto public forums and thus are subject to some free expression requirements), I'm simply pointing out the inconsistency.

Regarding "history of power and violence", well, if we compare the amount of violence and harassment right-wing events and meetings get (from Antifa, and other such orgs), vs. how relatively undisturbed gay pride events are, along with the overwhelming opposition of the media, academia, corporate elite, etc., to rightist views, I think its clear that the bulk of the "power and violence" lie not with people like Jones

> ompare the amount of violence and harassment right-wing events and meetings get (from Antifa, and other such orgs), vs. how relatively undisturbed gay pride events are

.. you find that you know nothing about why Pride exists and what it's for? Homophobic attacks on Pride marches themselves are relatively rare in the West these days, but individual random street attacks, abuse and discrimination against gay people are not.

(also, you seem to have forgotten that the US president and both houses are currently in power, or does that not count?)

> It doesn't make sense that as a baker I can be forced to bake gay wedding cakes, or as a Restaurant owner I can't open a 'straight white people only' restaurant [...]

What is wrong with you? What happened to you as a child that made you think this form of discrimination is even remotely acceptable?

What I believe should be legal and what I believe should be done (by decent people) are different questions.

You are completely misunderstanding his point.

He is saying why is it OK for a small business to be forced to accommodate something that may be against their belief system. But the biggest corporations, who are also managing our online discourse, can pick and choose what they like.

But he's insinuating that people like Alex Jones should be protected by freedom of speech as if their fucked up ideads are some sort of alternative view that's just not for everyone.

This is a form of gaslighting that tries to establish credibility for extremists that they don't have.

> But he's insinuating that people like Alex Jones should be protected by freedom of speech as if their fucked up ideads are some sort of alternative view that's just not for everyone.

That is the case. In my opinion he's a hilarious nutcase, but just because you find his views offensive does not mean his speech is now illegitimate. The whole point of freedom of speech is to allow the airing of controversial opinions, even if that means you end up with professional trolls calling tragedies a hoax. Any time you make a "freedom of speech doesn't apply to opinion X" argument, you are actively arguing against freedom of speech.

> This is a form of gaslighting that tries to establish credibility for extremists that they don't have.

What does this even mean? Having a different opinion is not gaslighting and to suggest that it is, is to trivialise a form of psychological abuse.

> can pick and choose what they like.

No, these big businesses cannot say "no tweets about gay weddings".

The baker won his case at the SCOTUS. [1]

Is being allowed to reenact Jim Crow something you really don't understand why you cant do?

1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colo...

> The baker won his case at the SCOTUS.

For overt bias-in-process reasons related to the state administrative adjudication of his particular case, not because the result otherwise would have violated his rights.

Isn't that part of the difference between customers and users? You cannot discriminate against customers, but you can against users.

I'm not aware of any such distinction in the law.

The more significant legal concept would be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group, I'd imagine. "Far right" isn't on the list. (Neither is far left, incidentally.)

I don't know of a de jure distinction either, but clearly there is a de facto distinction. Perhaps the law is undefined on this subject?

Is Alex Jones far right? From what I've seen he's insane (intergalactic pedophiles etc) and right wing, but not inciting race war or anything you'd expect from US far right groups. Maybe I'm wrong and he does, I've just never seen it.

Right wing and conspiracy oriented, but not racist, no.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/alex-jones-infowars-employees-... ?

The way it makes sense is that "right-wing nutjob" is not a protected characteristic, whereas race & sexual orientation are protected.

Religion is also a protected category, for what it's worth. Nevertheless, many people disagree with allowing a religious loophole to discriminate against gay customers.

That means you can't be discriminated against on the basis of your religion, not that you can discriminate against other people because of your religion though, right? Just like eg. being gay does not allow you to discriminate against black people.

I know it's more complicated in practice because the problem is political and other factors come into play.

It's hard because some longstanding religious practices would now be seen as discriminatory. For example, many branches of Islam teach that it is not permissible for unrelated members of the opposite sex to touch.

If a Muslim man is punished by his employer for not shaking hands with women he meets in his work, is that religious discrimination? Or is he discriminating against the women because of their sex (also a protected class)?

Which is a nonsense principle. Private companies should be either allowed to discriminate on whatever grounds they like or forced to treat all equally.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com