|
|
|
|
|
|
by jturpin
2176 days ago
|
|
|
> The first amendment does not grant you the right to a platform. It simply doesn't. This feels a little hand-wavy: in the past there have been "designated free speech zones" that are of course critized organizations like the ACLU as a form of censorship and denying free speech. I don't think it's too crazy to say that speech without a platform isn't speech at all. I'm not saying we should force sites to accept content they don't like but we are going to have to address the privatization of speech sooner rather than later. |
|
|
However, I find it challenging to have to continuously fight white supremacist ideas on platforms, especially considering the --vast-- amount of violence and brutality inflicted on the oppressed for hundreds of years.
Should we have a debate at some point about whether the privatization of platforms has become a bad thing? Sure. Should we do it -now-, while white supremacists actively use their platforms to incite hate and violence against black and brown people? No. We are losing the forest for the trees. Lives are lost every day because white supremacy continues to be pervasive in America. Allowing white supremacists a platform while not solving that problem is saying that the oppressed's right to live is less important than the white supremacist's right to speech. I simply don't agree with that.