I disagree, but due to positions that go well beyond this. The right to free speech in the US was designed at a time when it was believed the only way free speech could be infringed on was through governmental action, thus only the government was prevented from acting in censorship, and only then in a direct fashion. The current situation with modern information technology and the incestuous relationship between government and businesses via things like PACs and the like was so far out of context of the time that the laws simply could not protect us against modern threats.Don Incognito said:
It can be argued that it is the right of modern businesses and communication platforms to "ban" things that they do not like based on private ownership, but in a practical sense this actually gives private citizens more power over other citizens than elected officials. What's more in cases like this where there is a political angle to the entire thing, it's impossible to overlook how politicians are pushing for something and then the media and private businesses snap into lock step. Due to PACs and the quid pro quo in deals where the government and businesses do favors for each other there is fundamentally no difference when a government effectively tells private establishments to do something as part of the back and forth between them. Not to mention the more businesses that wind up working with the government in things like this the harder it becomes for them to resist when they need favors themselves to operate, and of course part of the whole deal is that businesses not complying with the trends will be targeted by other businesses like media companies that effectively control all of the platforms.
It's not so much a conspiracy, as much as the way how politics have been working, and the trends. Basically we've had liberals (as much as I drop that word) using a recent massacre as an excuse to push for something they have wanted for a long time now. Given the support of most media organizations we have as much attention being paid to the bloody Confederate Flag and the way liberals choose to interpret it's symbolism (with very little being said by the other side via major platforms, and certainly not allowed to express themselves by the numbers). Businesses that want to deal positively with the current administration, and potentially the next one (as the media has been screaming all roads from here lead to Hillary, which has doubtlessly convinced a lot of people in it being inevitable) need to comply, and of course hold outs can be targeted by the media. On a State level, not acting in support of course means bad blood with Uncle Sam who is becoming increasingly powerful under Democratic administration, and of course taking a stand here can mean losing needed Federal support on other issues.
The point here being is that while you are correct that nobody is making the Confederate flag illegal (yet) at least not officially, for all intents and purposes we're seeing the same result. What's more once the flag is forced out of circulation due to most businesses being afraid to carry it, and the rest of the pressure it will be increasingly easier to pass an official ban especially when most people think it's not a big deal anymore due to it effectively being out of circulation so long.
The way I see it is that the liberal battle cry of "Freedom Of Speech doesn't mean a freedom from repercussions" is pretty much the most dangerous sentiment in circulation right now. Since after all if one can be intimidated from speaking their mind it amounts to the same thing as a ban, it's just an indirect way of achieving the same result, and puts an end to a society where everyone can speak their mind without fear which was the intent. The founding fathers never envisioned an environment like this, especially not one where private citizens could hold such power over each other.
Look at it this way, do you really think Apple isn't political? Ditto for companies like Wal Mart. There isn't likely going to be damage to these companies due to carrying Confederate symbols, especially in an area where there is demand for them, and certainly not for presenting them in the context of the civil war, or old TV shows, or whatever else. Had the media not been pushing things to that extent nobody likely would have given a crap. Heck if the media hadn't chosen to focus on the Confederate flags Dylann was so fond of other than a passing mention it's likely nobody would have given a crap either. At the end of the day not complying can make life difficult for companies like this, especially if the Media-Liberal "alliance" decides to start singling out and targeting businesses that don't snap into line for them, and the bigger a business is and the more political it's forced to be, the more potential damage can be done.
Your free to disagree, this is simply what I think. The technicality that displaying The Confederate flag is not illegal doesn't matter when it can be made effectively illegal through other means. The main difference being that instead of the police, you have to deal with other citizens organized around socio-political agendas and usually being directed by political leaders at least to some extent.
The Founding fathers didn't say "well, you have free speech, but if you say something we don't like we'll find ways to make sure your business will be hurt by the interests that support us, and you'll face constant harassment from other citizens our supporters organize... but don't worry we're totally different from the British crown, since the guys we'll effectively be sending won't be wearing uniforms or part of the peerage".
Right now the right to free speech needs to be revised to protect citizens from other citizens, not just the government.... as I've said many times before. That said it's an uphill battle and of course it involves a lot of sheeple waking up, especially ones that don't want to see things changed because they happen to agree with what's being done right at the moment, not realizing that as time goes on the shoe could very well wind up being on the other foot.
