Escalating anti-LGBT+ hate and the terrorism it inspires

NovaSaber

NovaSaber

Well-known member
Citizen
www.lgbtqnation.com

Conservatives admit that Bud Light & Target boycotts are about making Pride “toxic” to corporations - LGBTQ Nation

Anti-LGBTQ+ trolls Matt Walsh and Michael Knowles finally said the quiet part loud.
www.lgbtqnation.com www.lgbtqnation.com

On his own Daily Wire show, host Michael Knowles reiterated Walsh’s point. “This has been the point that has been building for months now, which is we need to make that symbol toxic, the Pride flag symbol, we need to make that toxic,” Knowles said. “We need to have companies think twice about it.”
Click to expand...

I say we need to make it unacceptable to be a bigot.
 
wonko the sane?

wonko the sane?

You may test that assumption at your convinience.
Citizen
wonko the sane?

wonko the sane?

You may test that assumption at your convinience.
Citizen
Yeah, but... the current saying is a lie. All the evidence states that: you either support diversity and inclusion; or you're completely stifling your potential market to lock in a shrinking and poor consumer base.

The whole reason the right are screaming "go woke and go broke" is that thing they think happens when you say something enough times. It's an outright lie.
 
Pocket

Pocket

jumbled pile of person
Citizen
Color me surprised that Cruz isn't one of the leopards in this case.
 
Pocket

Pocket

jumbled pile of person
Citizen
I was more intrigued by the law itself. According to the article,
Signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) last September, A.B. 587 requires social media companies to publish their policies for removing hate speech, disinformation, extremism, harassment, and foreign political interference.
Click to expand...
Which... I'm not sure how a single state plans to enforce that? I presume it could only apply to companies based out of California—which admittedly is most of them—unless they're pulling a Montana and think they can police the entire internet. In either case, I would expect that most or all of the companies protesting this are already based out of, like, Kansas or Texas anyway.
 
wonko the sane?

wonko the sane?

You may test that assumption at your convinience.
Citizen
In cases like social media, it's not about where their based, but where they are used. So the headquarters and servers don't matter, just where the dude and his phone live for it matter.

But yeah, enforcement is always a problem.
 
Ungnome

Ungnome

Grand Empress of the Empire of One Square Foot.
Citizen
I think it's still a bit of a grey area legally, though most court cases seem to agree with your interpretation, Wonko. The law is set up to allow civil suits specifically to allow citizens to sue companies that don't follow the California regulation as long as either the company, or the citizen bringing the suit is in California. While I agree with the intent of the law, I strongly disagree with it's mechanics. My feeling of the matter is that this is a case of interstate trade and thus said law should NOT be enforceable unless the interaction of both parties in question are solely withing California borders. Anything outside of that opens up a giant can of worms. Same tactics could easily be used for less-than-noble things like the stunt Texas tried to pull by allowing its citizens to SUE abortion providers or anyone helping someone get an abortion. Florida could basically censor the entire US internet by allowing its citizens to sue anyone using some hypothetical 'don't say gay 3.0' law for instance.


I REALLY hate to say it, but I actually hope said Christian group prevails in this specific case.(time to go bang my head against the wall for a bit)
 
wonko the sane?

wonko the sane?

You may test that assumption at your convinience.
Citizen
The law (and frankly, society.) is still trying to understand and catch up to the meaning and concept of the internet and it's applications. Most laws emplaced over "virtual" things will be largely unenforceable until a universal standard is set, and legal precedent is made to apply globally instead of regionally. Considering how most law makers (especially over concepts like intellectual properties and broadcast rights.) are still stuck in the idea that the law ends at the range of the antenna, I think there's still a hell of a long way to go before the growing pains are done over social media and the internet.

And frankly: I don't want the US getting anywhere near policy for it either. I'd much rather the EU set the standard for this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


Top Bottom