“Today we seek to balance two principles that are critically important to us: freedom of speech and protection from discrimination,” Etsy’s Bonnie Broeren wrote in the post explaining the new policy. “Freedom of speech and expression is important to us because we are a community of artists, artisans, and curators of all backgrounds, aesthetics, and viewpoints. If you search our site, you will see a wide variety of items testifying to our diversity and our seemingly limitless creativity.”

She later stated, “[I]t has long been against our policies to allow content on our site that demeans people based upon race, ethnicity, religion, gender, gender identity, disability, or sexual orientation.”


The decision was met with good bit of mockery in the social media sphere, as Twitchy picked up. Individuals spotted Nazi Swastikas, merchandise that carries disparaging terms for homosexuals, blacks, mentally challenged, victims of domestic violence, among others.
Redskins bad. Redneck good.

Freedom of speech does not extend to privately owned websites. Why do people think that this exits? It doesn't even exist in the real world.

A website pretending that it does exist on their site isn't really being honest, or they are really ignorant.

Even sites that are "the most free in the world", and have anonymous users have moderators that remove certain things.

Brad

Well, maybe if it is a website owned by the US Congress or (by way of 14th amandment) another govt agency).
"CONGRESS shall make no law....."

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 09-14-2014).]

I really cant believe we live in a world where people get there areses tightened up over the name of a sports team

quote Originally posted by pontiackid86: I really cant believe we live in a world where people get there areses tightened up over the name of a sports team

We live at a time of the PC police. Unfortunately the PC police are run by the democratic liberal media where it is do as I say, not as I do.

quote Originally posted by Fats: Freedom of speech does not extend to privately owned websites. Why do people think that this exits?

quote Originally posted by maryjane: Well, maybe if it is a website owned by the US Congress or (by way of 14th amandment) another govt agency). "CONGRESS shall make no law....."

I did not think freedom of speech was guaranteed at/in private entities. Just as Cracker Barrel had the right to remove Duck Dynasty merchandise because of pseudo offense by gay rights zealots. I am merely pointing out Etsy's actions hypocritical actions and their cowardice to stand up against the political correct police. Maybe helping to promote a backlash like which made Cracker Barrel to reverse their decision.
( "CONGRESS shall make no law....." would be the First Amendment. )

quote Originally posted by Fats: A website pretending that it does exist on their site isn't really being honest, or they are really ignorant.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: I did not think freedom of speech was guaranteed at/in private entities. Just as Cracker Barrel had the right to remove Duck Dynasty merchandise because of pseudo offense by gay rights zealots. I am merely pointing out Etsy's actions hypocritical actions and their cowardice to stand up against the political correct police. Maybe helping to promote a backlash like which made Cracker Barrel to reverse their decision. ( "CONGRESS shall make no law....." would be the First Amendment. )

So, now that you have drew a line in the sand, when are you going to call out Hobby Lobby hypocritical actions?

Why are people/entities "zealots" & "cowards", etc when you disagree with them?

Probably the same time the Hobby Lobby haters and the Chik-fil-A haters call out Etsy.

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: So, now that you have drew a line in the sand, when are you going to call out Hobby Lobby hypocritical actions?

?
You would have to elaborate, .

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: Why are people/entities "zealots" & "cowards", etc when you disagree with them?

When did I say that I didn't agree with them, ?
Poll: 71% don't think Redskins should change name

Two new ESPN polls show that despite calls for the Washington Redskins to change their team nickname, the majority of Americans and NFL Players think the team shouldn't do so. 71 percent of Americans said they're in favor of the Washington Redskins keeping their name.


Yeah, 71% of Americans are unfeeling bigots, . How do native Americans feel ? Other than the Onida tribe which profits from this controversy.