You’re right corporations are not currently held liable for violations of the first amendment however I propose they should be as their power grows to match that of the government.
This to me is the most damning point one can make against privitization.
In a world where everything is privately owned, your constitutional rights don’t mean jack shit. That goes for 1A and 2A just the same. Communities here and reddit subs exemplify the often backwards and asinine policies go utterly contrary to any notion of free speech. Now apply that in life in general.
Corporations just become government without any consumer protections.
100% This is the reason anarchists and the only actual libertarians that exist.The ones that are on the left. Advocate for granular flat structures across the board. If you don’t argue for the abolishment of big businesses, the same as you argue for the abolishment of big government. You are no libertarian. And no. Business cannot regulate itself nor can competition keep businesses from growing too big. There’s like 200 years of evidence on all this.
As long as these massive multi-state, multi-national businesses exist. We will need a group of the public interest big enough to keep them in line. Government or lynch mob. And the more these cheeky fascists think they’re going to get around regulation by capturing the government. The more Luigi’s and lynch mobs there will be.
Regardless of what you call it basic rights such as freedom of speech need to be protected, both from government infringement and private interest infringement.
Correct solution. Corporations are not people and they do not get to participate in the political system, despite what any precedent may have established, that precedent is wrong and is incompatible with a functioning and free society.
Once corporations are no longer people, you will find a lot of things start making a lot more sense again, and it will be much easier to begin redistributing wealth for the good of the people again, to the actual people that the government of the people, by the people, and for the people exists to serve.
The problem isn’t that we should hold corporations as powerful as the govt to the same standards as the govt; literally by definition, the govt wouldn’t have the power to do that. The problem is that they are getting to powerful, and they should be broken up to prevent them from owning the govt, to promote competition and innovation, and to give consumers more alternatives to pick from.
Instead, they just own the govt.
But I want to be clear, no solution should ever involve holding a private entity “liable for violations of the first amendment”, because that is itself a violation of the first amendment. A private entity can only control its own speech, and Nexstar refusing to broadcast Kimmel is them making a choice on their own speech. But if the govt can force a company to broadcast Kimmel, then it can also force them to broadcast harmful content, and we don’t want that. What we want is competition.
Charlie Kirk’s wife then. My point is, do you see the glaring flaw in your logic that is apparent from about 30s of thought, and is the context in which the first amendment was written in?
You want us (the govt) to force Nexstar (a private entity) to host Kimmel’s (another private entity) speech. But if it were Trump (the govt) forcing CNN (a private entity) to host Tucker Carlson (another private entity) you would be in the comments about how it’s a fascist move. The thing is, it always was.
You understand that the Fediverse is literally built on the idea of a bunch of private entities each owning their piece of a distributed communication platform, right? You are a private entity.
Are you actually just arguing against freedom of the press and suggesting that only the state should control the means of communication? So only Trump would tell us what the news is? If so, then we simply disagree.
As a distributed platform nobody “owns” the fediverse.
One can swap instances and accounts without loosing access to any content.
As for freedom of speech, you have to understand the paradox of tolerance. To maintain freedom of speech you must ensure speech that would advocate for fascism and those who would speak it are suppressed.
You’re right corporations are not currently held liable for violations of the first amendment however I propose they should be as their power grows to match that of the government.
This to me is the most damning point one can make against privitization.
In a world where everything is privately owned, your constitutional rights don’t mean jack shit. That goes for 1A and 2A just the same. Communities here and reddit subs exemplify the often backwards and asinine policies go utterly contrary to any notion of free speech. Now apply that in life in general.
Corporations just become government without any consumer protections.
100% This is the reason anarchists and the only actual libertarians that exist.The ones that are on the left. Advocate for granular flat structures across the board. If you don’t argue for the abolishment of big businesses, the same as you argue for the abolishment of big government. You are no libertarian. And no. Business cannot regulate itself nor can competition keep businesses from growing too big. There’s like 200 years of evidence on all this.
As long as these massive multi-state, multi-national businesses exist. We will need a group of the public interest big enough to keep them in line. Government or lynch mob. And the more these cheeky fascists think they’re going to get around regulation by capturing the government. The more Luigi’s and lynch mobs there will be.
That would be anti-trust action. The current administration has no interest in enforcing those laws.
Regardless of what you call it basic rights such as freedom of speech need to be protected, both from government infringement and private interest infringement.
Yeah; I’d go more along the lines of saying Citizens United needs to be overturned.
At the end of the day, people need to be liable for their decisions and actions.
Corporations aren’t people; they don’t die, don’t have feelings, and can’t actually do anything by themselves.
No. Just take away their power.
Correct solution. Corporations are not people and they do not get to participate in the political system, despite what any precedent may have established, that precedent is wrong and is incompatible with a functioning and free society.
Once corporations are no longer people, you will find a lot of things start making a lot more sense again, and it will be much easier to begin redistributing wealth for the good of the people again, to the actual people that the government of the people, by the people, and for the people exists to serve.
Why not both?
Because that would be a violation of the first amendment. Refer to my other reply.
The problem isn’t that we should hold corporations as powerful as the govt to the same standards as the govt; literally by definition, the govt wouldn’t have the power to do that. The problem is that they are getting to powerful, and they should be broken up to prevent them from owning the govt, to promote competition and innovation, and to give consumers more alternatives to pick from.
Instead, they just own the govt.
But I want to be clear, no solution should ever involve holding a private entity “liable for violations of the first amendment”, because that is itself a violation of the first amendment. A private entity can only control its own speech, and Nexstar refusing to broadcast Kimmel is them making a choice on their own speech. But if the govt can force a company to broadcast Kimmel, then it can also force them to broadcast harmful content, and we don’t want that. What we want is competition.
Bullshit, a corporation has no first amendment right as it is not a person.
So then you wouldn’t have a problem with Trump stepping in and mandating that ABC/Disney/whoever gives Turning Point USA as much air time as Kimmel?
If so, on what grounds?
No, cause turning point USA doesn’t have a first amendment right.
Charlie Kirk’s wife then. My point is, do you see the glaring flaw in your logic that is apparent from about 30s of thought, and is the context in which the first amendment was written in?
You want us (the govt) to force Nexstar (a private entity) to host Kimmel’s (another private entity) speech. But if it were Trump (the govt) forcing CNN (a private entity) to host Tucker Carlson (another private entity) you would be in the comments about how it’s a fascist move. The thing is, it always was.
No, I believe means of communication should not be owned by private entities. While they are, I do not care for the rights of such entities.
You understand that the Fediverse is literally built on the idea of a bunch of private entities each owning their piece of a distributed communication platform, right? You are a private entity.
Are you actually just arguing against freedom of the press and suggesting that only the state should control the means of communication? So only Trump would tell us what the news is? If so, then we simply disagree.
As a distributed platform nobody “owns” the fediverse.
One can swap instances and accounts without loosing access to any content.
As for freedom of speech, you have to understand the paradox of tolerance. To maintain freedom of speech you must ensure speech that would advocate for fascism and those who would speak it are suppressed.