They dismiss real oppression against members of vulnerable populations as "not their job" and reinforce shallow Voltaire BS.
The principles you mention in the Weev case were ones worth defending for everyone, though. OTOH...
-
-
....the idea that public organizations that display ads can't refuse hate speech or exclude products full of hate speech is not a good one.
-
Hate speech isn't a legally recognized category, so I'm not sure what you mean. They also refused birth control ads and ads with 1A text.
-
Refusing BC ads is something good to challenge them on. ACLU conflating the two issues is awful.
-
The principle here is not "they shouldn't be able to refuse ads".
-
The principle is that refusal should be narrow and well-justified, not based on arbitrary biases.
-
I agree. The issue here, as I understand it, is that the WMATA's rule was "controversial" content which is definitely arbitrary.
-
Yes, that's a bad rule. But by including M*lo in the case, they're implying that his content should also be acceptable.
-
It was an ad for a book. What about the ad itself is unacceptable? I can envision lots of things that aren't acceptable, but book ads? No.
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.