This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Didn’t the SC side with the baker? Also there’s no rule/precedent I am aware of that says a company can’t stop working with a customer if the presence of that customer angers a large portion of their other customers.
Actually I don't think you would be. This exact discussion happened in the Free Speech thread and it was MT who raised that very point. That's exactly what it is. That doesn't mean that we have hate speech here it just means if we did they'd be within their rights to do something about it. Hypothetically if someone said something disgusting about what happened in Pittsburgh then shouldn't Joe or the mods be entitled to take it off their boards?
And the bigger question is if Joe decided to not take it off of here and it happened enough does their host have the right to remove footballguys from their service?
I don't have a problem with saying, "I disagree with hate groups. I disagree with groups that incite violence against other people. I disagree with people who knowingly and intentionally mislead others." And saying that a private company is free to censor hate, violence, and lies.
I would think yes. Just like if I owned a bar and let groups hold meetings there (I see this all the time from fantasy drafts to book clubs to cycling clubs). If a group came and I discovered they were a NAMLBA group, I would tell them no more meetings here. I would do it because I didn't want my establishment to be the place where NAMBLA is and I don't want customers having an unpleasant experience and not returning. But if I decided I was all about free speech and let them host their meetings, I would think it would be well within the rights of whomever I am renting from to not renew my lease. It's not about censorship it is about the reputation of the business.toshiba said:
Wait? What if Verizon didn't want their service to be used to transmit hate speech? Why stop with that. If Joe can remove users, services can remove sites, why can't ISP decide what data they transmit?
For starters they aren't supposed to access individual user data without a warrant or personal consent.
Seems like it should be one of the main goals of a social networking site: creating a user experience people enjoy.
They can still determine hate websites etc...
How so? If Verizon isn’t allowed to look at my personal internet history, how would they know what websites I’m posting to or maintaining? Maybe I’m dumb/misinformed and am missing something.
How do you think they will throttle what websites you visit if they don’t know what websites you’re going to?
The government has the ability to know what you're doing online. They don't have the resources to know what all of us are doing though.
Looking at the likes on your post, I don’t know when free speech became a left right issue, but apparently it is now...
Has the government made any moves to limit speech online? That isn't really the concern at this point. If the government was taking down these accounts or sites, I would 100% against it.
ISP are throttling certain sites in general, not because of individual use. Like if your ISP is throttling Youtube, it isn't because they know you, Toshiba, goes to Youtube a lot. It is because they are throttling Youtube for all their users.
Marsh v Alabama already did thattoshiba said:
Correct, so if they know a site is one they don't want their users to go to they can throttle all the way down to 0 (block).
I had not considered that nuclear attack is expressive conduct. Please alter my previous poorly thought out statement to include an exception for nuclear attack. There may also be an exception for Mongol hordes if lead by the great Khan himself.I disagree, nukes flying towards my city are more dangerous
Still all for being bribed with hotties though. I mean, we have to keep some of our American maleness here.
In general I agree. Especially the hottie part. But when we get down to specifics then it gets less easy.
Indeed there are abuses, I would never argue otherwise. Sadly, too, those abuses, while redressable in Court are never fully redressed. Courts cannot restore one's dignity or peace of mind, they can only give money judgments, small recompense for the offenses of some.
