[chillwaves]

All these cries of "censorship" misunderstand that what is happening is fundamentally a business decision.

When Alex Jones gets pulled from Youtube, it's because he is effecting their business relationships and ability to make money.

[mythrwy]

Couldn't you make the same argument about gay couples in a small town rural restaurant?

But would it be morally right to ban those couples from a restaurant?

[chillwaves]

No one is born a conspiracy theorist.

Someone spouting asshole opinions is not the same as an immutable trait by birth.

Alex Jones is not even being sincere in his quackery, this has been explored in court and he admitted to being a fraud.

[meheleventyone]

Because we have decided that after decades of bigotry, violence and discrimination that the rights of gay people to their life supersede the rights of free association for public businesses.

[mythrwy]

We have? Can you show me a national law in the US that says restaurants have to serve gays?

See how the "it's a private business so they can discriminate!" works?

Keep in mind, as you mention, the shoe has been on the other foot and it will be again. It's better to enshrine and uphold these principals at all times. Not be like a dirty cop planting evidence because "he knows the suspect did it" and try to get to "Right" by cheating. In the end that blows up and it was wrong all along anyway.

[meheleventyone]

Why do you think I’m talking about the US? There’s a whole world out there.

[mythrwy]

In that case "We" haven't decided anything at all what you suggest.

But now you and I are in the weeds.

I hope you see my point, that's all. Discrimination isn't good. Even if you don't agree with the other party.

[meheleventyone]

We aren’t trying to come to an agreement, we has a lot broader meaning than that. Good luck, have fun.

Discrimination isn’t good and propping it up in the name of free speech is gross.

[paulcole]

You could if it was 1950. Fortunately it’s 2020 and laws exist to protect gay couples.

[mythrwy]

I'm not sure they do to the extent you suggest.

But I agree, if you open a public service you can't not rent to blacks, you can't not serve gays nor Democrats. That is how it should be.

When you open an upload streaming service to the public, _particularly_ if you have the majority market share, you have certain obligations of non discrimination. This should include religious and political viewpoints as well as race and sexual orientation.

Maybe Jones does cross the line from political discourse into trolling and incitement to violence. Not sure because I haven't watched him except on Joe Rogan. But we need to be very careful about moving that line.

[paulcole]

I was replying to what you specifically said:

> Couldn't you make the same argument about gay couples in a small town rural restaurant?

And the answer is "no, you can't."

[mythrwy]

Well actually yes, you very clearly could.

Perhaps the restaurant is in a religiously conservative community and people won't eat there with their children if the restaurant has openly gay couples in attendance. So the gay couples being in the restaurant could negatively impact business.

What law prevents this? I'm not sure there is one in most of the U.S. Twitter and Reddit's opinion aren't so far law.

So the bottom line is yes, you could make the same argument.

But I think we both recognize this is morally unfair. When you provide a public venue, or offer something for sale to the public you have certain responsibilities towards non discrimination.

The fact the people being discriminated against are people you don't like or disagree with is irrelevant to this.

[paulcole]

> About 20 states, including New York and California, have enacted laws that prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/the-right-to-refuse-servi...

You learned something today!