People were advocating for the government to intervene in the baker situation (using force to compel someone to do something they don't want to).
People (including me) are advocating for the companies THEMSELVES to stand on the side of free speech, no government involvment
People (including me) are advocating for the companies THEMSELVES to stand on the side of free speech, no government involvment
There's a reason free speech exists and why it's so detrimental to the Internet, and it's very simple: Who gets to define what is not okay to say? Do you think just because the majority believes something is wrong, that makes it wrong?
If people want to start walking down this never-ending line of Internet censorship, go ahead, the results won't be pretty. Sure, we can all agree Alex Jones is a conspiracy nut, but is he the line now? What's the standard?
I've said mildly controversial things in the past that I believe to be true, but what if the majority decide that it was wrong-think or hateful? Oh it's not 'hateful' enough to ban me? Can you tell me why? Can you explain PRECISELY how 'hateful' my speech needs to be to ban me?
If you can't give me CLEAR-CUT standards on what is right and what is wrong to say, then you do not have the capacity or ability to start limiting free speech. The Internet is how we express ourselves in today's day and age, mess with it at your peril.
