Whatever you call it, nobody would want lawyers to be fired or huffpo being de-platformed for saying Trump stole the election had Trump narrowly won instead of narrowly lost.
The only difference is that the people in charge of big tech agree with you instead of the republicans. That won't always be the case.
When people say shit like this you just know immediately where they stand and who they consider their peers to be.
Leftist activists and sex workers specifically (but among others) have been getting banned from twitter, fb, reddit, other "big tech" platforms for years now. But I don't remember a mass crying out against it by the free speech fundamentalists.
- It could happen to you!
- It already has?
- That just proves my point!
Ignoring other people's experiences when issuing grim warnings is not a great style of argument, because it treats all hypothetical situations as equivalent and interchangeable.
The thing about the present circumstances is that they are so far outside of norms that such sanctions are exactly what is being put on the table by the judiciary. Because there are, in fact, limits to the doubt the judicial system is willing to grant litigants... Limits that lawyers have a professional duty to understand.
"Courts are not instruments through which parties engage in such gamesmanship or symbolic political gestures. As a result, at the conclusion of this litigation, the Court will determine whether to issue an order to show cause why this matter should not be referred to its Committee on Grievances for potential discipline of Plaintiffs’ counsel."
It is extremely correct, I think, to ask what long-term effects account banning and legal sanctions will have on norms and standards in the future, but one must note that norms and standards are currently extremely compromised. This circumstance is highly unusual.
> They didn't really deplatform until it went beyond speech and into targetted political violence and murder.
This right here. Far too many fucking apologists are neatly eliding the insurrection against our lawfully elected government that was incited by a seditious terrorist leader, and the literal years of lies that lead to that incident. Those arguing this is unjust censorship are arguing in bad faith and should be ignored.
He was given all the free speech he could handle, right up until he broke very clear laws against incitement. The only problem I see here is that platforms like Facebook and Twitter are monopolies and are not accountable to the people whose lives they affect (we the people). Either restrict their power (eg, break them up), or regulate them as common carriers.
That being said, it's dirt cheap and easy to rent a website and post whatever you please, right up until you incite again.
I think the terms "shun" and "ostracize" fit the current situation better than "ban."