Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

Banning tRump from Twitter is not like a bakery refusing a gay wedding cake.

It's like a bar cutting off a drunk patron, then expelling them because they are getting belligerent.

by Anonymousreply 10January 13, 2021 11:20 AM

A bar cuts off serving a drunk patron because the drunk can go outside and die in a ditch.

A bar doesn't provide a vital service. I ignore drunks and other belligerents.

by Anonymousreply 1January 13, 2021 12:53 AM

I used that analogy in a different thread. Going and drinking at a specific bar is not a first amendment right. That bar owner can throw you out on your ass if you start instigating fights. People, including many GOP politicians, are behaving as though the right to post on a privately-owned social media site is protected in the Constitution.

by Anonymousreply 2January 13, 2021 1:00 AM

[quote] Going and drinking at a specific bar is not a first amendment right.

Yes, demanding that a bakery bake stuff is not a first amendment right.

And, demanding that an free-enterprise internet platform provide space is also not a first amendment right.

by Anonymousreply 3January 13, 2021 1:07 AM

Tweeting is not a first amendment right.

Have you actually read the first amendment?

by Anonymousreply 4January 13, 2021 1:31 AM

That’s right.

Slander, libel and inciting riots are NOT protected, free speech in America.

by Anonymousreply 5January 13, 2021 4:59 AM

No, but we're all enjoying seeing a corporation exercising its firmly-held beliefs. This was the Republican's choice. I'm glad they have to live with the policies that they create, just like the rest of us.

by Anonymousreply 6January 13, 2021 6:05 AM

Though I believe it was well intentioned by many sharing the "gay wedding cake" analogy, it's also frustrating because it's missing the point. A person doesn't choose to be LGBTQ. Religion and bigotry are choices. Race isn't a choice, being a racist is.

These services all have terms and conditions with regards to the uses of them. The MAGAt's agreed to these rules when they signed up, then exploited and violated them. They got banned for it as a result. It's that simple.

by Anonymousreply 7January 13, 2021 8:00 AM

[quote] Religion and bigotry are choices

There no choice if you live in Baghdad and adjacent places

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 8January 13, 2021 10:19 AM

That bakery case has always bothered me. On the one hand, I get it. On the other hand, why would you want to give them ANY income? Let alone have them forced by law to make cakes for people they hate?

by Anonymousreply 9January 13, 2021 10:47 AM

I agree, R9, I'm bothered by that case, too. You can't force people to change their emotional prejudices. I'd just take my business somewhere else and tell everyone else to.

As for DUMP, Twitter is a private company. He has no right to tweet if they don't want his seditious, insane fat ass.

by Anonymousreply 10January 13, 2021 11:20 AM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!