Would you respect the right of a restaurant to kick out a black family? After all, it's private property.
Suppose it's a white family but they're wearing MAGA hats and the restaurant denies them service. That's nearly acceptable among a broad swath of the population today.
Now suppose it's your mom wearing a MAGA hat (you may not like that she wears one but it's her right, no?) and she gets denied service in a Starbucks. Maybe someone gets violent with her and knocks the hat off her head. Maybe the server spits in her coffee. All of which has happened. Are you still comfortable with "private property"?
Suppose you wander into a restaurant wearing a "Biden-Harris" T-shirt and they say "Get out!" Are you okay with that?
I could keep going, but you get the picture. We can't have a "freedom for me, not for thee" attitude. It has to be universal.
In every one of those cases, I support the nonviolent person. But still, we were talking about social media, not the physical world. None of that addresses whether the right is more or less likely to break the ToSes of social media sites.
Suppose it's a white family but they're wearing MAGA hats and the restaurant denies them service. That's nearly acceptable among a broad swath of the population today.
Now suppose it's your mom wearing a MAGA hat (you may not like that she wears one but it's her right, no?) and she gets denied service in a Starbucks. Maybe someone gets violent with her and knocks the hat off her head. Maybe the server spits in her coffee. All of which has happened. Are you still comfortable with "private property"?
Suppose you wander into a restaurant wearing a "Biden-Harris" T-shirt and they say "Get out!" Are you okay with that?
I could keep going, but you get the picture. We can't have a "freedom for me, not for thee" attitude. It has to be universal.