Knitting community bans posts supporting Trump - such posts are support for white supremacy

a reply to: InTheLight

Ban the particular members then, if they are spouting hate, not everyone who supports the POTUS!!!!!!

Websites do have the freedom to ban whomever they wish for whatever reasons they desire.

Companies can ban or censor anyone for any reason.

If a person was black, they could ban them just for being black.
If a person was Jewish, they could censor them for being Jewish.

The fact that companies are now banning and censoring people just for being Trump supporters, is not any different.

originally posted by: DontTreadOnMe
a reply to: InTheLight

Ban the particular members then, if they are spouting hate, not everyone who supports the POTUS!!!!!!

Their rules are clear, no politics, no religion - that includes everyone who supports and who does not support the POTUS!!!!

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: IAMTAT
At least they still allow PussyHat projects.
Way to avoid politics on your knitting website, knit-wits.

PussyHat Project

www.ravelry.com...

Ravelry even has a PHat Forum...

We have a Ravelry group if you’d like to chat with other PussyHat makers! Come join us! Posting about the hat somewhere that uses hashtags? Use #pussyhatproject

The PussyHat Project aims to:

Provide the people of the Women’s March on Washington D.C. a means to make a unique collective visual statement which will help activists be better heard.

Let’s come together to support women’s rights in a creative and impactful way.

If you are a knitter who wants to participate in the Women’s March on Washington D.C., but perhaps cannot attend yourself, please consider making a PINK HAT for a person who will be there.

The weather in D.C. that day will be a high of 35-45°F and a low of 15-25°F, so hats will be practically important to keep warm.

Right, and how does that promote hate?

Can you post a video of what you are talking about?

Does Madonna preaching about blowing up the WH at the event Ravelry was promoting....constitute promoting hate and violence by your reckoning?

Can you post a video of what you are talking about?

Sure...
www.youtube.com...
Complete with her Ravelry PHat.

Well Madonna is Madonna, radical drama queen. It is all about context. Why not post some of the other speakers that are promoting equality. I too can cherry pick examples to back up my claims.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: DontTreadOnMe
a reply to: InTheLight

Ban the particular members then, if they are spouting hate, not everyone who supports the POTUS!!!!!!

Their rules are clear, no politics, no religion - that includes everyone who supports and who does not support the POTUS!!!!

Where are they banning anyone who "does not support "? Or, let's see where they even mention banning anyone who does "not support".

originally posted by: SourGrapes

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: DontTreadOnMe
a reply to: InTheLight

Ban the particular members then, if they are spouting hate, not everyone who supports the POTUS!!!!!!

Their rules are clear, no politics, no religion - that includes everyone who supports and who does not support the POTUS!!!!

Where are they banning "non-supporters"? Or, let's see where they even mention banning "non-supporters".

They do not allow any political input from anybody...period.

a reply to: InTheLight

It mentions Trump, whom else is mentioned? Hmmm?

originally posted by: SourGrapes
a reply to: InTheLight

It mentions Trump, whom else is mentioned? Hmmm?

And Trump is politics, is he not?

a reply to: InTheLight

Are you telling me, that of I were to bash Trump, I'd be banned? Is that what you are saying?

originally posted by: SourGrapes
a reply to: InTheLight

Are you telling me, that of I were to bash Trump, I'd be banned? Is that what you are saying?

If you posted a political opinion, yes, if that opinion was bashing (hate) then double yes.

a reply to: InTheLight

no i read it all i just didnt see anything racist in anything she said at all even though the hive mind made her walk back her comments as her knitting forum is pretty important to her id gather. is it only racist because one half indian lady didnt like that a white person was excited to go to india and was Triggered?

the more this happens the closer we get to actually regulating what content providers can or cant do to stop "hate speech" or topics they dont like

www.americanbar.org... first-amendment/

Decades earlier, the brilliant legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky argued that the state action doctrine should be revisited and abandoned. He wrote that private censorship can be as harmful as governmental censorship. As applied to freedom of speech, he posited: Freedom of speech is defended both instrumentally—it helps people make better decisions—and intrinsically—individuals benefit from being able to express their views. The consensus is that the activity of expression is vital and must be protected. Any infringement of freedom of speech, be it by public or private entities, sacrifices these values. In other words, the consensus is not just that the government should not punish expression; rather, it is that speech is valuable and, therefore, any unjustified violation is impermissible. If employers can fire employees and landlords can evict tenants because of their speech, then speech will be chilled and expression lost. Instrumentally, the “marketplace of ideas” is constricted while, intrinsically, individuals are denied the ability to express themselves. Therefore, courts should uphold the social consensus by stopping all impermissible infringements of speech, not just those resulting from state action. (Erwin Chemerinsky, Rethinking State Action, 80 N.W. U. L. Rev. 503, 533–34 (1985).)

and

The First Amendment only limits governmental actors—federal, state, and local—but there are good reasons why this should be changed. Certain powerful private entities—particularly social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and others—can limit, control, and censor speech as much or more than governmental entities. A society that cares for the protection of free expression needs to recognize that the time has come to extend the reach of the First Amendment to cover these powerful, private entities that have ushered in a revolution in terms of communication capabilities. While this article focuses on social media entities, the public/private distinction and the state action doctrine are important beyond cyberspace. The National Football League’s reaction to Colin Kaepernick and other players “taking a knee” during the playing of the National Anthem is a pristine example of private conduct outside the reach of the First Amendment under current doctrine. But the nature of those protests couldn’t seem more public and cries out for a re-evaluation of the state action doctrine and the importance of protecting speech.

least that is the american bar associations take on the matter and givin all the recent cases of big tech,big blogs/forums happening recently we very well could see in our lifetimes the first amendment applied to non government actors more so if this keeps up, dems and republicans are talking about wanting to break up facebook, some republicans aren't happy with goggle censoring things as the recent post on them fiddling with ai algorithms to "prevent another trump" the list goes on

www.reuters.com...

But what if there is virtually no forbidden zone? What happens in liberal democracies, where the explicit default position of governments and the law is freedom to speak, publish and protest? What happens is that censorship slips from government to civil society, to groups and institutions and individuals who see some form of speech or publication as intolerable, and seek to ban it, or remove it. These are the flash floods of outrage which in turn provoke demands that the authorities rein in the would-be censors. This means doing the opposite of that which authoritarian states do. It means to remove censorship, not exert it. This has given rise to what is being called in the UK the “no-platform” movement – attempts to ban from university campuses speakers whom one or other group considers harmful to an audience. In July last year, the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, whose “The God Delusion” is an extended critique of all religions, was “no platformed” from the Berkeley, California radio station KPFA because, according to the station, his comments and writings about Islam had “offended and hurt” many people. Ironically, the station, founded in 1949 as a listener-sponsored broadcaster, advertises itself on its website as dedicated to freedoms of speech. “Offense” and “hurt” are the central concepts employed in this battle. They are often employed by those who see themselves as liberal, and even by universities, which insist on their intellectual freedom. Last December a group of historians wrote an open letter condemning an attempt by Nigel Biggar, a theology professor at Oxford, from organizing a conference looking at the benefits of colonialism. The objectors argued that such a project “should have no place in academic scholarship.” The writer and former London deputy mayor for education, Munira Mirza, disagreed, writing of the scholars’ objections that “it is a peculiarity of our times that many academics want to shut down debate… it might have been an authoritarian state trying to clamp down on uncomfortable opinion.”

www.apnews.com...

Under the order, colleges would need to agree to protect free speech in order to tap into more than $35 billion a year in research and educational grants. For public universities, that means vowing to uphold the First Amendment, which they’re already required to do. Private universities, which have more flexibility in limiting speech, will be required to commit to their own institutional rules. “We will not stand idly by to allow public institutions to violate their students’ constitutional rights,” Trump said. “If a college or university doesn’t allow you to speak, we will not give them money. It’s very simple.” Enforcement of the order will be left to federal agencies that award grants, but how schools will be monitored and what types of violations could trigger a loss of funding have yet to be seen. White House officials said details about the implementation will be finalized in coming months.

which is exactly why trump did this EO

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: InTheLight

I also don't see "mod" anywhere in your job description.

Nor will you ever see that...because I am for free speech not hate speech.

Excuse me?

I dare, I double-dog dare someone to enter the site and talk about Biden or Sanders.

lolz

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

Now that you got that off your chest, do you feel better now?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
I dare, I double-dog dare someone to enter the site and talk about Biden or Sanders.

lolz

I'm waiting on pins 'n' knitting needles...

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: DBCowboy
I dare, I double-dog dare someone to enter the site and talk about Biden or Sanders.

lolz

I'm waiting on pins 'n' knitting needles...

a reply to: DBCowboy


You're sew mean.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
I dare, I double-dog dare someone to enter the site and talk about Biden or Sanders.

lolz

lol OK I dare you.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: DBCowboy


You're sew mean.

I was being crewel.

Sorry.

originally posted by: Djarums

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: InTheLight

I also don't see "mod" anywhere in your job description.

Nor will you ever see that...because I am for free speech not hate speech.

Excuse me?

You are excused.