Menu
UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting
  • Football
    • 2024 Notre Dame Football Schedule
    • 2024 Notre Dame Roster
    • 2024 Notre Dame Coaching Staff
    • Injury News & Updates
    • Notre Dame Football Depth Charts
    • Notre Dame Point Spreads & Betting Odds
    • Notre Dame Transfers
    • NFL Fighting Irish
    • Game Archive
    • Player Archive
    • Past Seasons & Results
  • Recruiting
    • Commits
    • News & Rumors
    • Class of 2018 Commit List
    • Class of 2019 Commit List
    • Class of 2020 Commit List
    • Class of 2021 Commit List
    • Archives
  • History
    • Notre Dame Bowl History
    • Notre Dame NFL Draft History
    • Notre Dame Football ESPN GameDay History
    • Notre Dame Heisman Trophy Winners
    • Notre Dame Football National Championships
    • Notre Dame Football Rivalries
    • Notre Dame Stadium
    • Touchdown Jesus
  • Basketball
  • Forums
    • Chat Room
    • Football Forum
    • Open Forum
    • Basketball Board
    • Ticket Exchange
  • Videos
    • Notre Dame Basketball Highlights
    • Notre Dame Football Highlights
    • Notre Dame Football Recruiting Highlights
    • Notre Dame Player Highlights
    • Hype Videos
  • Latest News
  • Gear
  • About
    • Advertise With Us
    • Contact Us
    • Our RSS Feeds
    • Community Rules
    • Privacy Policy
  • RSS
  • YouTube
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
Home > Forums > The Open Forum
Login | Register

That was a short answer, and this is a complex issue that actually merits discussion.

Author: NedoftheHill (44713 Posts - Joined: Jun 29, 2011)
Posted at 5:00 pm on Jul 28, 2020
View All

In short, I would not be ok with Twitter wanted to ban LGBTQ posters, although I would be ok with Catholic.com wanted to ban those same posters. So, you misunderstand my views.

But, here is the long answer that merits discussion.

Internet companies are like restaurants or other services. We don't allow either of them to discriminate on the basis of race. But, we do allow them to discriminate on the bases of political views or religious views sometimes. It may be time to reconsider how we handle this. Surely if we can force a baker to provide services to people the baker doesn't agree with, we can force internet providers to provide services to people they don't agree with.

On the one hand, I think of UHND as a private service, totally under control of the moderators. I don't begrudge management by the owners of the site. I think of it like a private club.

And, there are sites like Catholic.com, which clearly have a viewpoint, and I don't begrudge them restricting posts to only those above a certain level of decency and honest seeking. If there were a transgender site, I wouldn't begrudge them kicking me off if I went there and started pointing out how antiscience they are. Private services, right?

But, then there are sites like Google, Twitter, Reddit and many others. They have become, essentially, utilities. Sort of like the old Usenet, which was totally content neutral--anything went on Usenet, and that was kind of nice. Everyone had a voice. When sites like that begin discriminating on the basis of religious views, or political views, then maybe they cross a line that should be protected. I think it is time to extend the First Amendment to cover sites like that...to expand the 1st Amendment rights to include private actors.

Much thought needs to go into how to do it properly, but I think the time has come to have the conversation.

It used to be that only the government had the reach and power to silence people, so the 1st Amendment was sufficient to protect freedom of speech. And, to DRO's point, we all have said at some point, "Not the government, so punishment by that speech by a private individual is ok." But, now, private organizations and private individuals have the power to take people's livelihoods away from them using the Internet. This is a new development. I think that needs to be stopped somehow. We can't keep consoling ourselves that just because the government isn't abusing someones speech or religious rights, it is ok to abuse those rights, especially when we are talking about a service which has become a commodity or utility used by society for basic communication.

It used to be that private discrimination was ok, and blacks could be barred access to facilities or restaurants or the like, but we expanded Constitutional protections to that level. It was the right thing to do, and we no longer say, "That is a private restaurant, they can discriminate if they want to do so." It is time to do this for communication and the internet.

Thoughts?


This message has been edited 1 time(s).

Evil preaches tolerance until it is dominant, then it tries to silence good.

Replies to: "That was a short answer, and this is a complex issue that actually merits discussion."

  • Hydroxychloroquine [LINK] - IrishMac - 10:11am 7/28/20 (25) [View All]
    • Apparently Trump Jr shared the same video and Twitter temporarily suspended his account - ND_in_DRO - 11:03am 7/28/20
      • That seems fair in a free society. [NT] - NedoftheHill - 1:14pm 7/28/20
        • Indeed, the government doesn’t control private companies and the content of their - Frank L - 4:16pm 7/28/20
          • If Twitter wanted to ban LGBT platforms for religious reasons, Ned would be cool with that. [NT] - ND_in_DRO - 4:22pm 7/28/20
            • That was a short answer, and this is a complex issue that actually merits discussion. - NedoftheHill - 5:00pm 7/28/20
            • I don't think platforms like that should regulate content. - NedoftheHill - 4:38pm 7/28/20
              • Really? They do here. [NT] - Frank L - 5:03pm 7/28/20
                • See my post above. UHND seems more like a private club than a utility. - NedoftheHill - 5:13pm 7/28/20
        • Twitter is a private company last time I checked. [NT] - ND_in_DRO - 2:29pm 7/28/20
    • Thank you for posting that. Good thing you're backing her opinion. - jimbasil - 10:50am 7/28/20
    • Well done! Shows the real debate here. - Chris94 - 10:35am 7/28/20
      • Listen to me. This drug should be available to dr's at THEIR discretion for now, but D govs took it - BaronVonZemo - 12:26pm 7/28/20
        • Don’t forget the deep state FDA. [NT] - LanceHarbor - 1:01pm 7/28/20
        • Yes, the government is suppressing a useful drug. - Chris94 - 12:55pm 7/28/20
          • You're pro choice, why shouldn't a patient get to decide if he or she wants to take a specific drug? [NT] - WestCoastIrishFan - 2:26pm 7/28/20
            • Why can’t I be allowed to get chemotherapy if I want it? - Chris94 - 2:37pm 7/28/20
              • if you can afford, yes, i think you should be able to get it. [NT] - WestCoastIrishFan - 3:10pm 7/28/20
      • What about the moron scientists, this is confusing... - iairishcheeks - 11:34am 7/28/20
    • I have no opinion, unprofessional or otherwise on it’s efficacy other than what’s been reported. - Frank L - 10:26am 7/28/20
      • “Most sort of sensible people have started to move on and really look at other therapies.” [LINK] - CC72 - 10:34am 7/28/20
        • why not allow the patient to make the choice? If I were on my deathbed, I'd hope I'd be able to - WestCoastIrishFan - 12:32pm 7/28/20
        • For whatever reason, it still has a noisy support group. I’m willing to play along so long - Frank L - 10:41am 7/28/20
    • If you believe this crap I have a bridge to sell you [NT] - CC72 - 10:12am 7/28/20
    • HAHAHA. Well timed with the post just below. - LanceHarbor - 10:12am 7/28/20
      • OK smarty, PROVE that our government isn't controlled by Reptillians - CC72 - 10:20am 7/28/20
Close
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • RSS