Comment by jquery
9 years ago
The larger point about trying to censor people out of having opinions instead of ignoring or condemning them is valid. This has raised their profile far beyond simply ignoring or condemning them and treating them like any other repulsive website (of which there are PLENTY that Google/GoDaddy/Cloudflare now "officially endorse").
Serious question: where's the line?
The government shouldn't be censoring.
I don't allow white nationalists into my house.
At what point does "I" represent something too big for me to no longer have the moral privilege to refuse to collaborate with white nationalists?
Maybe when you get in the business of providing speech as a service. For example, imagine you went into the wedding cake business, and someone came in and wanted you to make a gay wedding cake (note: not a wedding cake for gay people, but a wedding cake that normalized gay marriage). Now imagine you're a very old-school traditionalist about that sort of thing. Should you be compelled to make that cake with two women on the top?
Given that the Supreme Court has already decided that "wedding cake makers" are part of critical speech infrastructure, I think that Cloudflare, a service that hosts ISIS, pirates, and others, should be subject to the same restrictions as wedding cake makers.
> http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/masterpiece-cakes...
They have not decided anything, other than to agree to hear the case:
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/masterpiece-cakes...
2 replies →
beyond the fact that the wedding cake hasn't been decided, the point of that case isn't about free speech but about protected classes.
You don't want to let (for example) landlords to deny lending to people because they're gay, black, etc. Not as much of a free speech thing as a 14th ammendment thing
> http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/masterpiece-cakes...
They have not decided anything, other than to agree to hear the case:
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/masterpiece-cakes...
> Given that the Supreme Court has already decided that "wedding cake makers" are part of critical speech infrastructure
They have? Source? And what's "critical speech infrastructure"?
4 replies →
On the flip side of that you can only run your cake making business because you benefit from access to a stable monetary system (hah, I live in the UK), a safe and civil society and an educated populace with money to buy over priced sugar.
Given that does society not have a right to say that "If you want to earn money providing a service then you should do so by providing that service equally to all people who aren't breaking the law"?
Not saying which side I fall, I'm not sure but I think the question is interesting.
Far to often we focus on our rights and forget that other people have rights and that society has a duty to us and we have a duty to society.
Heeeeell no!
The wedding cake case didn't have anything to do with free speech, and a lot to do with discrimination: http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminate....
Do not conflate a bunch of causes just because you feel they are related. It doesn't do your argument any favors.
> I don't allow white nationalists into my house.
That reminds me a joke that someone made during a family meeting. It was something along the lines of "What? You are going to marry a COMMUNIST?" and "I don't want loyalists in my house!", both of which are outdated concepts nowadays.
While you are free to refuse entry to your house to anyone that you want, it doesn't change the fact that refusing access to someone who would otherwise be allowed in just for their political beliefs is a jerk thing to do.