Declaration of human rights vs faux libertarian deplatformers

Just because deplatforming anyone you disagree with is legal under US law doesn't change the fact that it's a direct violation of free speech and human rights.

As the Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly states :
https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html

Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

The right to "seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media" is as explicit as it gets when it comes to social media, and the Internet in general. *Any* media. Facebook is a media, so is Youtube, so is any website you make that can get taken down by its host or registrar. Free speech on the Internet *as a whole* is a human right.

But what about a private company's right to personal property, also a human right, that gives them the right to censor what's on "their turf"?

Well, these guys thought of everything :

Article 30
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

This article is not about "muh government" like faux libertarians believe, but about "any State, group or person". So this definitely includes private businesses.
Again, as clear as it gets. The right to personal property does NOT give businesses any right to infringe on the right to free speech through *any* media, as defined in article 19.

Deplatforming is a direct violation of human rights.

People who advocate for deplatforming can pretend to be "libertarians" all they want, they're not fooling anyone. They're are anti-human rights totalitarians, period.

And the people who wrote the declaration saw through this kind of charade perfectly.

 

Cool. So any person can come into your living room and espouse their beliefs and opinions, whatever they may be, and if you try to stop them you're deplatforming them and violating their human rights. If property rights are subordinate to the rights of freedom of opinion and expression that would apply as much to your house as it does to Youtube or Facebook.

 

Fail. You're just parroting a standard faux libertarian fallacy, completely disregarding the fact that it doesn't apply to the specific articles quoted here in any way.

My living room is not a media. Article 19 is about freedom to "receive and impart information and ideas through any media". So it doesn't apply.

The articles I quoted make a clear distinction between Youtube and my living room, and so do I. Your post is just a false analogy and a strawman.

 

I don't really understand why you think the declaration has any bearing on the USA? Maybe I'm putting words in your mouth?

I don't understand why you think a business can do anything? It is those humans in charge of what content is published on the site that are at fault. A business is an intangible thing created by writing on documents and signing them.

 

Not a strawman or false analogy. You want to be able to abrogate other people's property rights but keep your own intact. Property is property. If you can refuse use of your house Youtube can refuse use of their server, router and fiber.

Maybe you'd like it better if people just had access to your computer and internet for their receiving and imparting information and ideas, though "Media" can just as easily include a venue such as an auditorium or a house.

 

I'm a natural rights libertarian. Given that you believe that you have the right to other people's property because some organization declared it, it is you that has far more in common with totalitarians. You're the globalist version of a Bible thumper.

 

How does "deplatforming" violate any person's right to express their opinion?