Cancelled for LIKING/FOLLOWING "controversial" people..

The Supreme Court has ruled a number of times that you have the Right to Freedom of Association. This "Cancel Culture" takes away that Right. And the people doing it should be considered anti-American.

While the United States Constitution's First Amendment identifies the rights to assemble and to petition the government, the text of the First Amendment does not make specific mention of a right to association. Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Alabama (1958) that freedom of association is an essential part of freedom of speech because, in many cases, people can engage in effective speech only when they join with others.

Freedom of Association

a reply to: twigbaby

This reminds me almost of China's social credit system. Won't be long...

a reply to: twigbaby

This is what the left has always done, and what they will always do. If you are their political opposition they will ruin you, destroy your life, and they don't care if they use lies to do it. If Biden, or anyone in the SOCIALIST party wins the presidential election you will be denied jobs, you will be denied rights, you will be ruined just for not being a SOCIALIST.

This is what left-wingers are doing to the U.S. As I have written many times there is a war coming, and those who lean to the right in politics will not be the ones starting it.

When the conflict starts, the left will call on the UN to intervene and take control to help IMPOSE SOCIALISM in the U.S.

I wrote about this years ago, and it seems to be what will unfold in the near future. Unless Trump is once again POTUS in 2020. But what will happen in 2024?

If you believe in prayer, do so. Pray for the U.S. to be saved, because the left will only destroy it.

a reply to: dogstar23

Excellent rant... and to a great extent, I agree. People can watch and listen and read whoever they want. For whatever reason they choose.

The problem is when it's not enough for someone who disagrees to walk away (or turn the page, or the channel, or click on the x in the corner) but instead decide to pile on a person for not thinking right -- when they are bullied, banned, de-platformed, fired. And then we can also judge/react accordingly.

Only those who cannot rightfully and righteously defend their own position feel any need to shut down others for their positions.

originally posted by: CryHavoc
The Supreme Court has ruled a number of times that you have the Right to Freedom of Association.

That's in regards the government infringing on your right to freely associate, it has nothing to do with private citizens or companies.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: dogstar23

Excellent rant... and to a great extent, I agree. People can watch and listen and read whoever they want. For whatever reason they choose.

The problem is when it's not enough for someone who disagrees to walk away (or turn the page, or the channel, or click on the x in the corner) but instead decide to pile on a person for not thinking right -- when they are bullied, banned, de-platformed, fired. And then we can also judge/react accordingly.

Only those who cannot rightfully and righteously defend their own position feel any need to shut down others for their positions.

Appreciate the response - the issue really does bug me, as I mostly disagree with the so-called cancel-ers (is that a word?) opinions and what they're doing, yet, I also don't see anything inherently unconstitutional about it. In fact, it seems more like exercising their own 1st Amendment rights.

As for what it says about society - I think it speaks to the directiontard nature of where at least the mob mentalities are at in the US right now. I wish it was more "rugged individualism" leading to some being shunned and others shining. I just can't agree with any notion that its something which should be stopped or dis-allowed. Almost feels as if the narrative against is being pushed to later "backfire" on those who ask for it to be stopped /outlawed /whatever it is they want.

originally posted by: dogstar23

Appreciate the response - the issue really does bug me, as I mostly disagree with the so-called cancel-ers (is that a word?) opinions and what they're doing, yet, I also don't see anything inherently unconstitutional about it. In fact, it seems more like exercising their own 1st Amendment rights.

I think we're pretty much on the same page. Freedom of speech only guarantees our right to say what we wish... it doesn't guarantee us the right to be listened to. And if a private enterprise chooses not to host specific viewpoints, that is also their 1st amendment right.

I do think, however, that when it comes to official channels, no one's voice should be shut down. And I tend to think that corporations -- fictional legal entities created by government critters that get special government entitlements and perks -- should not have the option to shut down voices either. But reforming incorporation charters is a whole other thread, eh?

As for what it says about society - I think it speaks to the directiontard nature of where at least the mob mentalities are at in the US right now. I wish it was more "rugged individualism" leading to some being shunned and others shining.

Again, we're on the same page. I'd like to see much more of that "rugged individualism" as well. Even if people still come to the same conclusions, people need to consider the BIG picture, think it ALL through and reason it all out for themselves to really "own" their opinions. The good, the bad, and the ugly. Unfortunately, it seems to me that these mob mentalities are being fomented within the echo chambers that the cancel culture encourages. (That was such a word salad -- I'm sorry! I didn't mean it to be.) But then again, I'm really not sure which came first -- the mob mentality or the echo chamber.

I just can't agree with any notion that its something which should be stopped or dis-allowed. Almost feels as if the narrative against is being pushed to later "backfire" on those who ask for it to be stopped /outlawed /whatever it is they want.

I agree. And it's the extreme positions that always get us in trouble. Either anyone can say anything... or no one can say anything... or someone will tell everyone what it's okay to say...

There doesn't seem to be any room for people saying what they will and letting nature take it's course. Those worth listening to will rise to the top on their own merits... Those not worth listening to will fade into obscurity.

originally posted by: Boadicea
Freedom of speech only guarantees our right to say what we wish. it doesn't guarantee us the right to be listened to. And if a private enterprise chooses not to host specific viewpoints, that is also their 1st amendment right.

Thurgood Marshall disagreed with you.

Justice Thurgood Marshall eloquently explained that “[t]he freedom to speak and the freedom to hear are inseparable; they are two sides of the same coin.” Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 775 (1972) (Marshall, J., dissenting).

See, this "Cancel Culture" is deciding if you should Hear someone's Free Speech or not. They are taking away your choice to Hear. They are making your choice for you.

a reply to: CryHavoc

Your quoting him in a dissenting opinion which means the Court didn't agree with him.

Frederick Douglas also disagreed with you.

As Frederick Douglass said in 1860 after an abolitionist meeting was broken up because the topic was “offensive”:

"Equally clear is the right to hear. To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker. It is just as criminal to rob a man of his right to speak and hear as it would be to rob him of his money. … When a man is allowed to speak because he is rich and powerful, it aggravates the crime of denying the right to the poor and humble."

a reply to: twigbaby

why dont these people tell their accusers to # off and cite the Constitution and keep their jobs? surely they have free speech in canada too? And anyway 2 people is not a huge amount to state your case.
hire a pro bono lawyer?
seems like they just roll over and take it.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Ha, Instagram model, like being a soldier on Call Of Duty

I agree with you though, right, wrong, or indifferent, one has to think about what they put out there..the internet is forever.

originally posted by: chris_stibrany
a reply to: twigbaby

why dont these people tell their accusers to # off and cite the Constitution and keep their jobs? surely they have free speech in canada too? And anyway 2 people is not a huge amount to state your case.
hire a pro bono lawyer?
seems like they just roll over and take it.

I would fight it for sure, probable grounds for wrongful dismissal.

a reply to: CryHavoc

“[t]he freedom to speak and the freedom to hear are inseparable; they are two sides of the same coin.”

That's not what I said... this is what I said:

Freedom of speech only guarantees our right to say what we wish. it doesn't guarantee us the right to be listened to.

Of course we have the right to hear what/who we want to hear. But no one has a right to be listened to. They cannot demand anyone else listen to what they have to say.

It;s the digital lynch mob.
Self-righteous attitudes encouraged by academia, hollywood and corporations.
Their enemy is the older generations; those who have allowed 'systemic racism' and 'climate change' to continue unchecked.
They are saving the world by destroying it.
nice.

originally posted by: Boadicea
Of course we have the right to hear what/who we want to hear. But no one has a right to be listened to. They cannot demand anyone else listen to what they have to say.

This "Cancel Culture" is taking away your choice by telling you who you should or shouldn't hear. They are doing your thinking for you - not giving you a chance/choice to think for yourself. Taking away your Right to hear for yourself.

a reply to: dogstar23

Right.

Cancel culture is nothing new. It has always existed in societies, even back to the cave people days. In high school. In small towns. In religious cults. In families. In neighborhoods.

Shunning. Social rejection.

Why even call it cancel culture? Just call it what it is. Consequences of actions a society or portion thereof deems not acceptable and chooses to distance themselves from.

Only difference is that now it's a bigger society amplified by social media and so seems new and is more widespread. The "liking/following" is just an expansion of what went on anyway in smaller settings.

But it's online, So of course it needs a new name.

originally posted by: CryHavoc

originally posted by: Boadicea
Of course we have the right to hear what/who we want to hear. But no one has a right to be listened to. They cannot demand anyone else listen to what they have to say.

This "Cancel Culture" is taking away your choice by telling you who you should or shouldn't hear. They are doing your thinking for you - not giving you a chance/choice to think for yourself. Taking away your Right to hear for yourself.

No one's taking away your choice.

originally posted by: GravitySucks
No one's taking away your choice.

You completely misunderstanding the situation.

originally posted by: CryHavoc

This "Cancel Culture" is taking away your choice by telling you who you should or shouldn't hear. They are doing your thinking for you - not giving you a chance/choice to think for yourself. Taking away your Right to hear for yourself.

Your point is well taken, and it's one reason I have given so much time and energy to researching and writing about Transgender issues here on ATS. This is still one of the very few places where people can freely discuss, examine and criticize the Trans Agenda and Trans Activism. Twitter will ban you for merely saying "trans women are not women" or refusing to use someone's "preferred" pronouns, etc.

I wouldn't expect a cooking website or TV show or whatever to talk about trans issues, or to welcome anyone else to talk about trans issues, or to demand that anyone come on and talk about trans issues... and I would neither want nor expect it to do so. Likewise, no one can force anyone to watch their cooking show, or to hear about the virtues of roasted turkey over smoked turkey.

Given where we're having this discussion, obviously neither one of us is afraid of reading something that we don't agree with, and we're not concerned about speaking up about whatsoever we choose to speak about. We take responsibility for what we read/hear and what we write/say. Neither of us reads every single thread posted, and no one would expect us to.

So the rights and wants of everyone need to be balanced. It's not right to deny someone the right to speak about what they choose, it's not right to deny someone the right to hear what they choose, but neither is it right to force anyone to listen or force anyone to host anyone else.