<div dir="auto">Nothing I said implied force. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div>On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 12:33 AM Craig Bowden <<a href="mailto:craig.bowden@lp.org">craig.bowden@lp.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">My opinion doesn't change, regardless of what is being censored based on <br>
terms agreed to. And as I said, we can certainly state that we disagree <br>
with actions a company takes. That is the purview of our own speech that <br>
can be used. Just as I didn't like that the cake baker refused service, <br>
I do not want government to do anything about it. The answer is that we <br>
can voice displeasure. We can boycott. We can create alternatives in the <br>
market. We can encourage others to take money elsewhere. We can <br>
encourage selling off the stocks of a company.<br>
<br>
That is how you handle a situation like this. As a political party, <br>
however, when we speak, we must be careful. The reason we must be <br>
careful, is that when we take a position, it can be seen as this is how <br>
we would govern, or how we would make laws. So any statement must be <br>
carefully made, if at all, on this sort of issue.<br>
<br>
You do not want the appearance that we are advocating for government to <br>
force or regulate this sort of thing.<br>
<br>
So if the party is going to take a stance on this, I personally would <br>
have to see language on it before I could get behind it. The last thing <br>
I want is more perception that we would like to force the baking of a <br>
cake.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Craig Bowden<br>
Region 1 Alternate<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 2018-08-09 22:58, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:<br>
> ====We can certainly dislike private censorship, but at the end of the<br>
> day,<br>
> since it was not government, the best we can do is say that we<br>
> disagree<br>
> <br>
> with what those social media platforms did.===<br>
> <br>
> Make the issue about race, gender, or war and insert that conclusion<br>
> above and ask if we would have the same opinion.<br>
> <br>
> We wouldn’t.<br>
> <br>
> The issue isn’t if private organizations have the right to do<br>
> something - of course they do. The issue is whether it is right to do<br>
> so. We have never only stood on the side of rights we have also stood<br>
> on the side of right - and the instrinsic value of open speech in an<br>
> arena where it should be expected (unlike church and more like a stage<br>
> for rent) is one of those things that are necessarily to prevent a<br>
> corporate dystopia which is just as destructive to human freedom as a<br>
> state one.<br>
> <br>
> We can’t pretend as if we only take absolutely thin libertarian<br>
> stances because we don’t.<br>
> <br>
> A huge criticism of libertarianism is that we seem to act like only<br>
> government can be bad actors and that private action is at worst<br>
> neutral. And that is rightly rejected as being very naive.<br>
> <br>
> -Caryn Ann<br>
> <br>
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 9:12 PM Craig Bowden <<a href="mailto:craig.bowden@lp.org" target="_blank">craig.bowden@lp.org</a>><br>
> wrote:<br>
> <br>
>> My statement on the issue was already done during a radio interview<br>
>> the<br>
>> other day. While I certainly don't appreciate people using certain<br>
>> type<br>
>> of language or twisting the truth, etc. they should be able to do<br>
>> so.<br>
>> However, if a platform decides that a person is violating their<br>
>> terms of<br>
>> service, which the user agreed to, it becomes a matter of contract.<br>
>> We<br>
>> can certainly dislike private censorship, but at the end of the day,<br>
>> <br>
>> since it was not government, the best we can do is say that we<br>
>> disagree<br>
>> with what those social media platforms did.<br>
>> <br>
>> I personally have zero support for Mr. Jones, but also don't mind if<br>
>> he<br>
>> does what he does. It doesn't affect me one way or the other. On the<br>
>> <br>
>> side of caution, I would say that we would need to know actual facts<br>
>> on<br>
>> why he was taken down. Was it due to repeated violations of terms of<br>
>> <br>
>> use? If so, I wouldn't say a dang word, because he clicked accept.<br>
>> <br>
>> If I were to go in front of my church and start talking about the<br>
>> glory<br>
>> of Satan, I would get shut down immediately. Why? Because I don't<br>
>> have<br>
>> freedom of speech at that pulpit. By entering the building, I agree<br>
>> that<br>
>> I will abide by the rules of the church. It is the same with social<br>
>> media platforms. That is the building, if the terms are violated,<br>
>> after<br>
>> being agreed to, that is on the person going against those terms.<br>
>> <br>
>> Craig Bowden<br>
>> Region 1 Representative<br>
>> <br>
>> On 2018-08-09 12:21, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:<br>
>>> Is the LP going to issue an opinion on this? It is the perfect<br>
>>> opportunity to affirm rights while showing that rights are not the<br>
>> end<br>
>>> all and be all to a healthy society. A society of peaceful bigots<br>
>> -<br>
>>> for instance - is a sick society. So is a society that<br>
>>> paternalistically protects us all from "those unfit to speak".<br>
>>> <br>
>>> Whether or not they are *allowed* to do it misses the point.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> --<br>
>>> <br>
>>> IN LIBERTY,<br>
>>> CARYN ANN HARLOS<br>
>>> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary -<br>
>>> Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org or Secretary@LP.org.<br>
>>> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia@LP.org<br>
>>> <br>
>>> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:<br>
>>> _We defend your rights_<br>
>>> _And oppose the use of force_<br>
>>> _Taxation is theft_<br>
> --<br>
> <br>
> IN LIBERTY,<br>
> CARYN ANN HARLOS<br>
> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary -<br>
> Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org or Secretary@LP.org.<br>
> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia@LP.org<br>
> <br>
> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:<br>
> _We defend your rights_<br>
> _And oppose the use of force_<br>
> _Taxation is theft_<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><font size="4" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color="#666666"><b>In Liberty,</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color="#666666"><b>Caryn Ann Harlos</b></font></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small">Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary - <a href="mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org" target="_blank">Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org</a> or Secretary@LP.org.</span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small">Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia@LP.org</span><br></div><div><br></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small">A haiku to the Statement of Principles:</span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small"><i>We defend your rights</i></span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small"><i>And oppose the use of force</i></span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small"><i>Taxation is theft</i></span></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small"><br></span></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>