Nice cherry pick. I already conceded that pot was not under discussion for the reasons I stated. I was talking about "hard" drugs.
Fair enough. I still think that the "danger to society" thing has been and still is oversold as hokum. The criminalization of drug use has caused more societal problems then the original problem they were trying to "fix".
Take a look at the results of Portugal legalizing small amounts of both "soft" and "hard" drugs. While usage remained pretty much the same, other societal side effects of drug use have improved. HIV diagnoses went down, entries into treatment facilities went up, drug related deaths dropped, adolescent use went down, criminal justice workloads went down and actual the street value of the drugs dropped.
It appears to me, that the original reason we made drugs illegal was the irresponsible use was seen as a danger to society as a whole.
That is a very nice rose-colored view there, but unfortunately incorrect. The campaign to make marijuana illegal was funded and driven by William Randolph Hearst who owned huge tracts of forestland and didn't want to compete with hemp in paper manufacturing and Andrew Mellon (a heavy investor of Du Pont) and the Du Pont family who wanted to replace hemp with nylon for ropes and such.
...those whose lives are destroyed by others without having been physically hit or touched.
My generation was raised with the axiom "Stick and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me". We were also taught that your own feelings were your own responsibility and no one could make you feel something with words unless you allowed it.
I think there are a lot of "fragile snowflakes" out there nowadays who need to pull up their big-boy pants and grow a backbone. Just my 2 cents.
Yes, I use a very broad definition of violence and as far as I am concerned, it is well justified.
Not really. Stretching definitions of words to suit your agenda only makes you look ignorant. Intelligent people converse using common, accepted definitions of words so others can actually figure out what the fuck you are talking about.
One theory for Jews being so prevalent in the moneylending and "middle-man" (traders, brokers, etc.) occupations throughout history is the fact that every Jewish man was (and is) required to read from the Torah at their Bar Mitzvah (usually age 13). This dates back before Christianity began. As a group, Jews were simply more educated than anyone else throughout most of our history.
Calling out companies that ridiculously censor speech on their own platforms is not the same thing as saying those companies shouldn't have the right to control what is published on their platforms. You are missing the nuances here.
I notice that the clear subtext to these "tech industry leaders" is that a Trump presidency might obstruct the flow of cheap H1B labor from overseas.
Your definition of "cheap H1B labor from overseas" is a bit skewed. The median salary for H-1B workers in the top five tech companies is well over 100k/year. I wouldn't classify that as "cheap labor" in any industry.
Well, does Facebook qualify more as "small owner-operated company, in which the owners are necessarily closely connected to the speech" or "large organization"?
I would definitely consider Facebook "large organization", but that wasn't the only criteria that decided Turner v FCC. Also note that Volokh qualifies his statement with "might be required to".
AFAIK only a couple cases have forced private companies to disseminate messages that they might disagree with, that being cable companies and universities. In both of those the court determined they had some degree of "monopolistic opportunity to shut out some speakers". I don't believe that Facebook has reached that bar when it comes to disseminating speech on the internet.
I guess the examples I used above are not quite right.
Federal law does not prevent businesses from refusing service to customers based on sexual orientation. Neither does the state, county or municipality where my business is located. So I could actually refuse to serve someone based on their sexual preference, if I wanted to.
A better example:
I can refuse to print a "Black Lives Matter" sign because I disagree with the message. On the other hand, I cannot refuse to print a "No Parking" sign for someone just because they are black.
(Once again, I wouldn't actually refuse either of these customers)
Having multiple bakeries in one town doesn't let one private bakery off the hook when it comes to protected classes.
Don't confuse refusing service to someone with refusing to disseminate a message you disagree with.
As a purveyor of fine signage, I can refuse to print a "Gay Pride" sign because I disagree with the message. On the other hand, I cannot refuse to print a "No Parking" sign for someone just because they are homosexual.
(Just so you know, the above are just examples and I wouldn't actually refuse either because I personally don't give two shits about what other people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms.)
Looking into this a little further, it could be argued that Facebook holds a monopoly in internet communication and could be forced to relay messages they disagree with the same way that Turner Broadcasting was forced to carry channels they objected to. (see Turner Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission, 512 U.S. 622 (1994)) Personally, I disagree with this argument - I don't even have a Facebook account and I am able to voice my opinions just fine on the internet.
Playing Devil's advocate, what they are trying to say is that these services have become a social necessity and first amendment protections should apply.
When you post something on Facebook you already have First Admentmed protection. The govenment cannot tell or force Facebook to remove your post as long as what you are saying is protected speech.
The First Amendment has never been about forcing anyone to provide a platform for your speech. Newspapers have always held the right not to publish your letter to editor if they choose not to. Kinko's has the right to refuse to copy your flyer if they do not like your message. I work in the sign industry and I can absolutely refuse to make a sign that I personally object to. The First Amendment only applies to the government suppressing speech, not private entities.
...and citizens in America must learn to abide by police authority when confronted.
I was with you right up to that point.
After decades and decades of systematic abuse of authority by law enforcement personnel, your advice of "just bend over and take it with a smile" is piss-poor advice, in my opinion.
The resentment towards LEOs stems from the over militarization of police forces, the ingrained law enforcement culture of being "above the law" and the practice of using tickets, arrests and property seizures as funding sources.
The resentment of the public by LEOs stems from the fact that everybody carries a video recorder in their pocket and they are less likely to be able to abuse their authority without consequences these days.
None of those are the fault of the public, but yet you still advise that we "must learn to abide by police authority when confronted". That is not a solution, it's blaming the victims.
Provide "evidence" to sensationalism and non-sensical wingnut talking points?
Ok then, how about you simply express why you think this amendment is a good idea?
Thus far all you have contributed to this discussion is childish insults. Although I doubt it, it is possible you you might have an opposing viewpoint which deserves consideration, so let's hear it, Skippy.