5 ms·

The actions of privately-owned registrars are completely irrelevant to this discussion.

• dingo_bat 9y ago
  It's not irrelevant. What Google and go daddy did is tantamount to censorship. And that actually does prevent somebody from exercising free speech.
  • sixstringtheory 9y ago
    Private corporations and government are different, legally and philosophically. You won't be able to apply a law written specifically restricting the government to private citizens or corporations without a constitutional amendment. What Google and GoDaddy did was the private citizen equivalent of hearing someone else state their opinion, allowing the words to enter their brain, think about them, and then decide they do not espouse those opinions, so they will not go around stating them to other people as fact. That is not censorship, it's just good sense.
  • charonn0 9y ago
    Whether or not Google and Godaddy's actions are appropriate is a separate discussion from whether or not the government can compel political websites to disclose their visitor logs.
  • walterstucco 9y ago
    They did what they thought it's best for their platforms It's theirs, Google and Godaddy are not public libraries. I can't stop you from screaming pro Nazi propaganda on the streets But if you do it in my home, I kick you out. Simple as that
  • dragonwriter 9y ago
    > What Google and go daddy did is tantamount to censorship It is censorship (not “tantamount”), but censorship of the sort (private actors deciding on what views to promote with their own resources) that the idea of “free speech” in general, and the First Amendment in particular, exist to protect.