581
Christian actress spent 5 years in court defending her right to make anti-LGBTQ+ comments. She just lost. (www.lgbtqnation.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/atheism@lemmy.world
128 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

We seemingly don't, and that is bad thing. People should be allowed to say whatever they like, or democracy doesn't work. What does it matter if you can vote for whoever you want, if you can't even vocalise an opinion that the majority disagree with? I disagree fundamentally with this woman's opinion, but that doesn't mean she should be banned from saying it - if we disagree with it, we should disincentivise others from believing it by arguing against it, not hiding the opinion.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    She wasn't banned from saying it, she was fired for refusing to do the job she was hired to do.

    If you hire a butcher and they refuse to work on / around / in the vicinity of pork because of their religious beliefs, you are not firing them because of their religion. You're firing them because they're not a fit for the job they were hired for.

    Demanding the script change because she has a problem with LGBT+ and being let go isn't being "cancelled", it's demanding the entire production bend to your personal beliefs and being told "no".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    You're right, she shouldn't have signed up for that job. I wasn't talking about her case in particular, but rather the larger phenomenon of people being banned for having opposing beliefs, particularly in online places where you can talk (forums, social media, etc)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago

    "Opposing beliefs" is often just coded language for extremely offensive, factually inaccurate, demonstrably dangerous, and often indefensible speech. Social media companies aren't obligated to keep posts about Jewish space lasers, Holocaust denialism, and pro-fascist ideologies on their servers.

    Social media advertisers don't want their product advertisements appearing adjacent to batshit, nonsensical, conspiratorial, alt-right bullshit.

    Having a Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, or Instagram account isn't a right and having it taken away doesn't make you a victim. Nobody owes anyone else a platform to spew toxicity to the masses.

    I'm using the royal "you" btw. I'm not saying you, specifically, are a Trump supporting crybaby.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Private entities are not the government.

    If the government owned a version of Twitter, sure. Until then, good luck lol.

    For the same reason I can tell you to get the fuck off my property. Doesn't mean you can murder, but it's mine. You don't get to plant flaming crosses on it unless it's upside down with a statue of Baphoment. Because then you'd have my permission.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    There's a difference between a small web forum with 3 users though, and something like Twitter, which is a gatekeeper and thus must be held to higher standards.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Legally? No, there isn't.

    ISPs aren't even nationalized. Let alone private websites.

    Also there should literally be no such term as higher standards. Standards should be equal.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago

    But you are missing the point here. She wasn't told she couldn't comment or make those statements. She made those statements when her role was a gay character for a musical that she never read the script for, any of the literature or looked at any other productions of. She also had stated that she didn't want any gay roles. She would have completely ruined the production as well as caused a massive backlash against the theater when her views were discovered by the target audience. This isn't a freedom of speech situation, she wanted to say whatever she wanted without consequences and that doesn't exist unless you are extremely wealthy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent