Comment by ajuc
9 years ago
> I'm happy they're offline for the moment, but I wish it was because of a court order focused on specific actions
but
> you can't operate systems as big as the internet on a case by case basis.
So - you want such pages to be impossible to persecute for illegal activities in practice?
Anyway - having a website on a particular server is not a human right. If I come to your newspaper and demand you put my stuff in there - you can say "no" and don't have to explain yourself, and it's not a violation of free speech.
The violation of a free speech would be if somebody forbid you to print your newspaper at all. It's not the case - daily stormer can put servers in basement and publish their propaganda from there. So - free speech is irrelevant to this case.
It's simply about people refusing to do business with assholes, and I am quite confused why would anybody oppose that attitude.
Heh good point, let me clarify:
Private internet companies should operate with scalable, predictable rules. They should be required to operate without discrimination against legally protected classes, but otherwise are free to deny service to anyone.
Courts should punish people and organizations that produce violence, discrimination against protected classes, and/or libel. This production may be direct or indirect; Judges draw the line. When those people/organizations are punished, all their outlets should be effected.
Mostly I just want these actions to be super credible and super effective. The fascists are crying unjust censorship left and right... I want social decency enforced in a way that undermines that argument.
For example, I wish the Charlottesville counter protest was 10,000 people standing together, in silence, holding signs saying "SHAME" and "Liberty and Justice for ALL." Then the Nazis would have no grounds to claim their speech was suppressed, and also no grounds to claim that they represent anything but an angry, alienated minority.