37 ms·

To me this is not that different from state censorship I experience in Russia. I would argue that the internet is the primary medium for exercizing one's free

To me this is not that different from state censorship I experience in Russia. I would argue that the internet is the primary medium for exercizing one's free speech today. The technological change made printed medium outdated. If you are not on the interent, you will not be heard. If the the government decided to configure the crucial internet infrastructure (domain name resolution) in a way that private companies can censor speech(registrars and verisign), then it's effectively a violation of the first amendment. Because what this ammounts to is government saying that the medium of public protesting or sharing printed material is protected, but the medium of electronic communication is not, because we decided to privatize it. It's like saying you can't protest here because we decided to privatize all the public squares and paved roads, their owners don't want to see you, and the fist amendment does not protect you there, you can protest on a dirt road in the forest(TOR etc) where no one sees you. I feel very uneasy about these events, because it's a precedent. Censorship of the interent in Russia began with pedophile histeria in the media to justify the laws, and now it's used to censor opposition supporting media. Considering the changing tastes of upcoming college graduates in the US, in terms of interpretation of what constitues free speech and what doesn't, the political censorship could become intstituionalized in the US through "TOS violations". And through this censorial normalcy could eventually pave way to the end of the current absolutist legal interpretation of the first amendment. Which would be very bad IMO.

CM30 9y ago
> It's like saying you can't protest here because we decided to privatize all the public squares and paved roads, their owners don't want to see you, and the fist amendment does not protect you there, you can protest on a dirt road in the forest(TOR etc) where no one sees you. This is why I've always been skeptical of the whole 'no one owes you a public platform' thing. Because prior to the internet, they kind of did. Public property meant your protest would likely be visible to a large audience, even though those who may disagree with you or wish you'd go away. Even in cases that would probably horrify a large percentage of people on social media sites: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_Am... In that sense, why you weren't de jure guaranteed an audience, you were de facto guaranteed one because public property was well, public. The internet being all private property means that while the legal basis of free speech isn't under threat, the practical purpose of it is.
tim333 9y ago
Meh. The site's up again already on a .ru domain https://dailystormer.ru/a-tale-of-true-friendship-trump-called-putin-to-get-us-a-new-domain/ https://dailystormer.ru/a-tale-of-true-friendship-trump-call... It's not being censored, it's just reputable companies don't want to deal with them. Fair enough I say.
- kombucha2 9y ago
  Aaaand its gone...
Delmania 9y ago
> To me this is not that different from state censorship I experience in Russia. This was not done by the United States government, but by private companies, that do not need to protect free speech. We just went through this with Damore, and the answer is no, companies do not need to respect your free speech.

CM30 9y ago

> It's like saying you can't protest here because we decided to privatize all the public squares and paved roads, their owners don't want to see you, and the fist amendment does not protect you there, you can protest on a dirt road in the forest(TOR etc) where no one sees you. This is why I've always been skeptical of the whole 'no one owes you a public platform' thing. Because prior to the internet, they kind of did. Public property meant your protest would likely be visible to a large audience, even though those who may disagree with you or wish you'd go away. Even in cases that would probably horrify a large percentage of people on social media sites: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_Am... In that sense, why you weren't de jure guaranteed an audience, you were de facto guaranteed one because public property was well, public. The internet being all private property means that while the legal basis of free speech isn't under threat, the practical purpose of it is.

tim333 9y ago

Meh. The site's up again already on a .ru domain https://dailystormer.ru/a-tale-of-true-friendship-trump-called-putin-to-get-us-a-new-domain/ https://dailystormer.ru/a-tale-of-true-friendship-trump-call... It's not being censored, it's just reputable companies don't want to deal with them. Fair enough I say.

kombucha2 9y ago
Aaaand its gone...

Delmania 9y ago

> To me this is not that different from state censorship I experience in Russia. This was not done by the United States government, but by private companies, that do not need to protect free speech. We just went through this with Damore, and the answer is no, companies do not need to respect your free speech.