Comment by mattnewton
5 years ago
The first amendment makes speech protected from state action. The government of the United States of America is bound by law to not suppress the political speech of its citizens. I don't think it is relevant to international boycotts, in letter or in spirit.
The point is that Namecheap parades itself as a defender of the First Amendment, while simultaneously robbing people of a vehicle of self-expression that these people have paid for. I know the language of the First Amendment doesn't prohibit Namecheap from saying the will no longer initiate or do any business with Russians. However, it's hypocritical all the same when they criticize the similar actions being taken by the US government.
>I don't think it is relevant to international boycotts, in letter or in spirit
Of course the First Amendment is relevant to international boycotts. How else would Namecheap half-assingly justifying its premature pullout? If they don't want to renew those domains after a year is up, I wouldn't have a problem, but that's not the case.
My issue is not Namecheap's boycott in and of itself, but the process of damning a host of individuals on the barest of relations to the Russian government while having the gall to take their money and run away.
> The point is that Namecheap parades itself as a defender of the First Amendment, while simultaneously robbing people of a vehicle of self-expression that they have paid for.
I think this is conflating two issues that are altogether very different. In the first, Name cheap was pro section 230 protection, because without it they believed that they would have no choice but to censor people due to the potential for legal liabilities incurred without those protections. They were not advocating for the right of people to not be deplatformed due to their speech. And that isn't even what is happening here, namecheap is deciding to boycott Russia because of the actions of the Russian government, not the speech of the individual Russians. The first amendment in spirit is about protecting citizens from the state and absolutely does not mandate who you do business with and why. There are other laws for protected classes in the US but the whole issue of US law just seems absolutely disjointed in my mind.
> Of course the First Amendment is relevant to international boycotts. How else would Namecheap half-assingly justifying its premature pullout?
I don't follow at all, sorry. They make no reference to the first amendment, they simply believe it is not in their best interests to do business with Russian citizens at this time because of the actions of the Russian government. This kind of boycott strategy happens all the time.
As I've said before, this is about Namecheap's self-portrayed values. It defends its Section 230 protection on the premise of protecting its and others' rights to speak freely. Given today's circumstances, it seems that reasoning is false.
To quote Namecheap:
"As citizens ourselves, we embrace the joy of hearing all voices. The power to regulate or restrict speech or expression concentrated in the hands of only a few big tech companies is not how we want those decisions made for us."
And what has it done today? It's nakedly hypocritical that Namecheap engages in those same restrictions against its own customers. If they just said "We're a business for free speech when said speech is convenient to our interests. Take it or leave it", that wouldn't be so much of an issue.
> the actions of the Russian government, not the speech of the individual Russians
> they simply believe it is not in their best interests to do business with Russian citizens at this time because of the actions of the Russian government. This kind of boycott strategy happens all the time.
Then why dissociate on the basis of TLDs of which many Americans may be domain holders? Or why is it that individual Russians citizens are having their websites taken down for the actions of their government? Namecheap is not being selective or proportionate.
1 reply →
An obsession with the right to free speech over all other rights is invoking Poe's law if it's now being advocated for in the case of a warmongering adversarial state. While it's not the aim of this move, during every war, communications of the enemy are hindered. The First Amendment would never have been written if the authors valued the rights of British Soldiers as much as their own.
The Russian government is not marching on Ukraine. There are no bureaucrats and politicians driving tanks. Russia's army is. And it's Russia's people who give power to the state to direct them. It would be absurd for an uncaring Russian individual to complain about essentially paltry financial or logistical issues as while being complicit in the erosion of Ukranian individuals' right to life.
>An obsession with the right to free speech over all other rights is invoking Poe's law if it's now being advocated for in the case of a warmongering adversarial state.
Should US citizens have been cut off from registrar providers in 2003 because of the war in Iraq? Let's be consistent here. If you think that a state being an adversarial warmonger is the requirement to deny it's people a service they paid for, even the one's who never wanted a war, then every person on the planet is liable by proxy of their current or previous governments.
>While it's not the aim of this move, during every war, communications of the enemy are hindered.
By an army against another army, not a private organization against civilians. Namecheap is not a military or paramilitary organization. Namecheap is a private business, and is still subject to US laws as a private business. Hindering communications of an "enemy" isn't a justification for outright financial fraud.
>The First Amendment would never have been written if the authors valued the rights of British Soldiers as much as their own.
I'm not able to follow what this is supposed to mean. British soldiers at the direction of the Crown violated the rights of empire's own subjects under the Coercive Acts and initiated violence in Concord & Lexington. The soldiers made their bed. The Bill of Rights were not ratified until until 1791, well after the war.
>The Russian government is not marching on Ukraine. There are no bureaucrats and politicians driving tanks. Russia's army is.
Who's directing the army? Who's the one in control of those nuclear warheads being brought out. The civilians aren't the one's driving BMPs or flying MI-8s. Most if pressed, couldn't even point to Kyiv on a map. I don't know if you're either absolving Putin of his actions as though he doesn't have free will or claiming everyone in Russia is as guilty as he is for being Russian, but this is a terrible argument.
>And it's Russia's people who give power to the state to direct them.
This is a false premise. It's almost laughable. You're conflating American jurisprudence with the politics of the Kremlin. In case you haven't noticed, the Russian government is not a government by the people or for the people.
>It would be absurd for an uncaring Russian individual to complain about essentially paltry financial or logistical issues as while being complicit in the erosion of Ukranian individuals' right to life.
In short: "Ukrainians have it worse, so Russian civilians should accept what's doled out to them". If you can think there can only be one victim at any one time, then I've got news for you.
1 reply →