[jo032]

I think our history books do a disservice when they teach McCarthyism by focusing only on the falsely accused-- many Americans really did support the USSR and some even swore an oath to Stallin. The lesson should be that it was still a mistake to take civil liberties away from these people who passionately supported a horrible cause, not that McCarthyists were just bad prosecutors who arrested the wrong people.

I believe Trump supporters, especially the QAnon weirdos, are wrong to believe the things that they do, but they are less wrong than the people who supported the Soviet Union during its genocidal reign. Unless people are charged and convicted of a crime, their livelihoods should not be taken away by the whims of these powerful companies selectively enforcing their rules. McCarthyism was wrong then and it's wrong now, even though its targets are wrong too.

[nobody9999]

>The lesson should be that it was still a mistake to take civil liberties away

I agree. No one should take Stripe's civil liberties away from them.

[jo032]

Hollywood is a private business as well. They were within their rights to make a blacklist. And people cheered on big business for protecting them and snitched on their friends to their employers, just like they're doing now

[nobody9999]

>Hollywood is a private business as well. They were within their rights to make a blacklist. And people cheered on big business for protecting them and snitched on their friends to their employers, just like they're doing now

I'm not seeing the parallel to Stripe choosing who they want (or don't want) to do business with.

Especially since there is no "blacklist" circulated and used by everyone in that industry.

Stripe doesn't owe anyone the right to use their services. Just as an airline can bar anyone for most any reason (unless that reason is membership in a protected class[0]), Stripe can do the same.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group

[jo032]

when did I say Stripe didn't have the legal right to do this? I used the Hollywood blacklist as a parallel precisely because it too was a legal enforcement of political speech by a big consolidated industry that had the power to end peoples' careers

I only think it's morally wrong.

[nobody9999]

But it's not a parallel at all.

All the Hollywood studios (a bunch of different entities) conspired with each other not to hire those people.

Stripe is a single entity and isn't (AFAIK) working with others on the payment processing industry to block a specific set of people/groups.

And it's protected (and IMHO, should be) because it's a political organization -- Stripe has the right (as do you or I) to choose whether or not they wish to support (verbally, financially or through other material methods) any particular political party, policy position or candidate.

Let's say that you own a business that makes t-shirts. And you strongly support candidate X. Should you be required to make t-shirts for candidate Y (candidate X's opponent)?

And if you chose not to make t-shirts for candidate Y, is that morally wrong?

[jo032]

you are being intentionally obtuse. there is obviously a difference between a t shirt vendor and 1/2 of a duopoly on online payments. the other of which also (coincidentally in your view) took the same measures to restrict people from using their services at the exact same time with no realistic alternative

[dragonwriter]

> Hollywood is a private business as well.

No, it's not a private business.

> They were within their rights to make a blacklist

No, making an agreement in restraint of trade is a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

[jo032]

are you under the impression that the hollywood studios published an actual blacklist and openly admitted to collusion?

They didn't do that, just like the tech giants are not doing that now, as they take the same action at the same time against the same target.

[dragonwriter]

> are you under the impression that the hollywood studios published an actual blacklist and openly admitted to collusion?

Neither publication not open admission are necessary for a combination in restraint of trade to be illegal, and you'd usually want to avoid them since they make it much easier to prove.

[jo032]

yes but practically big businesses can get away with these types of things without much fuss. even in the case where Apple and Google were caught wage-fixing, and there were emails from the CEOs blatantly colluding to prove it, all they got was a slap on the wrist. So it's effectively legal in my view

[admiralspoo]

The QAnon folks are no less irrational than any other (pseudo-)religious devotees and should be afforded the same protections under the first amendment.

[esoterica]

This is like the millionth time this has been posted on this website in the past few days, but the first amendment applies to the government, not private companies.

[thechao]

The first amendment applies to corporations when they use the state to enforce their speech over someone else's. The actual case history surrounding first amendment rights is way more complicated than you're implying. There are situations where the government can restrict your first amendment rights; there are situations where you can have your first amendment rights violated by a company — and seek restitution.

[Rapzid]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Can you give me an example of something that has happened recently in regards to QAnon where their first amendment rights may have been violated?

[jo032]

the poster you are replying to seems to be arguing that Qanon people should be a protected class under the civil rights act because it's a hokey pseudo religion with prophecies, shamans, and everything. That absolutely does apply to private companies. I don't really know what to make of that as I am not a lawyer, but I'm not making a legal argument but a moral one.

Internet businesses are natural monopolies and being banned from one can ruin your life without trial in a way that was unprecedented for private companies to be able to do in the past. In the near future somebody who is banned from both Paypal and Stripe will be close to being perpetually unbanked in some lines of work. The way progressives have cheered on giving tech companies this much power over our lives has been dispiriting

[nobody9999]

>Internet businesses are natural monopolies and being banned from one can ruin your life without trial in a way that was unprecedented for private companies to be able to do in the past.

What solution do you propose? Take away the right of association from one group of people to enable another group?

That seems strange to me. If you allow the government to create a precedent where you can restrict the rights of anyone, then you can restrict the rights of everyone.

That idea makes me very uncomfortable.

[jo032]

What you are saying is word for word the libertarian argument against the civil rights act ("if we have to bake a cake for gay weddings, what if wants a cake for their child bride!"). I happen to disagree with it as it applies in the real world

[mmcwilliams]

This argument seems to intentionally ignore that the conservative-led decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled in favor of the bakery.

[nobody9999]

>What you are saying is word for word the libertarian argument against the civil rights act ("if we have to bake a cake for gay weddings, what if wants a cake for their child bride!"). I happen to disagree with it as it applies in the real world

No. I'm not. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I'll try to boil it down to as few words as possible:

If the government can take away your rights, then they can take away mine too. I don't support that and will defend your rights as vigorously as my own, whether I agree with you or not.

As for the example you give, bakers don't have to bake a cake for gay weddings.

[esoterica]

The first amendment doesn’t prohibit discrimination against protected classes though, that’s an entirely different section of the legal code.

[jo032]

the civil rights act effectively does protect speech with regards to religion and sexual orientation, since the idea that we won't discriminate against those things as long as nobody finds out is not what it means