9 ms·

Free speech does not mean a company has to take part in spreading it :). Free speech is about your right to speak without the government locking you up, or cen

by bwb 9y ago

Free speech does not mean a company has to take part in spreading it :). Free speech is about your right to speak without the government locking you up, or censoring those who choose to broadcast/spread it. But nothing about free speech says someone else has to listen or spread it for you, companies included. The line is drawn at calling for violence though, which is pretty fucking tricky to navigate.

jquery 9y ago
You're confusing free speech with the first amendment. Free speech is a cultural value says that controversial speech shouldn't be censored, rather it should be debated, condemned, or ignored. The first amendment guarantees the government will uphold this value. You are perfectly correct that private companies can throw the value of free speech in the dumpster if the CEO wakes up in a bad mood.
- mindcrime 9y ago
  The first amendment guarantees the government will uphold this value. More like "The first amendment purports to guarantee that the government will uphold this value."
  - mindcrime 9y ago
    OK, I'm usually the last to complain about downvoting, but this is ridiculous. That our government routinely fails to uphold the principle of free speech is not even remotely a controversial position... so perhaps some of you folks would like to explain what your argument is? Remember, a "first amendment" in and of itself has absolutely zero power to guarantee anything. Our government violates many of the provisions of the Constitution on a daily basis. "Free speech zones" anybody? Warrantless wiretapping? Civil asset forfeiture? Etc, etc., etc. At the end of the day, the old line "the Constitution is just a piece of paper" really is true. It's actually down to us, "We The People" to hold our government accountable and make sure it upholds the principles we value. We can't just abdicate our responsibility and say "Oh, it's in the 1st amendment, so I'm sure they'll do the right thing."
- chickenfries 9y ago
  Free speech, the cultural value, can only be protected by the government. The market doesn't demand things like liberty and justice.
  - stale2002 9y ago
    It can be protected in lots of ways! For example, society can start firing people who make arguments against free speech. We could start banning their accounts on the internet, and refusing to serve them at restaurants. Your freedom to support censorship doesn't mean that you are free from consequences! ;)
    - chickenfries 9y ago
      > For example, society can start firing people who make arguments against free speech. We could start banning their accounts on the internet, and refusing to serve them at restaurants. Yep, and at that point the only recourse you would have would be the government, right? > Your freedom to support censorship doesn't mean that you are free from consequences! ;) Your smugness suggests that you think this is surprising to me, rather than being my entire point. Businesses will do whatever they want, in their own self-interest. If we want them to do something else because we as a society value something like free speech, your options are to ignore it or to pass a law. If you're concerned about CloudFlare's ability to censor the internet, take it up with the government, because CloudFlare's commitment to free speech is good only as long as it makes business sense for them.
      - stale2002 9y ago
        Perhaps we could make a law. But at this point I think that it be better to just have a free market retaliatory war of "social consequences". IE, the pro censorship people get named and shamed and fired from their jobs (starting with the most extreme first) Then the pro censorship people would try to fix the problem with laws, ect.
        chickenfries 9y ago
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Free speech is a cultural value says that controversial speech shouldn't be censored No, free speech (and the related freedoms of press, religion, and association) is a cultural value that says every member of society should be free to choose which ideas they will promote and which people they will associate with, applying their own values. That absolutely includes choosing which ideas from other people they will participate in spreading, which, yes, is censorship (but not public censorship), but remains absolutely central to the ideal of free speech. Freedom of speech is not entitlement to have others cooperate in spreading your speech.
  - jquery 9y ago
    Wow! What's up is down and down is up. I assume you are vehemently on the side those wedding cake bakers who refused to make a gay wedding cake, then? Once a private communications provider becomes recognized as communications infrastructure, they lose the right to police content that goes through their infrastructure. For example, my ISP, even though it participates in "spreading" my ideas, has no say in the matter. If you can argue that some random wedding cake bakers are part of "critical wedding baking infrastructure and must therefore be compelled to make a gay cake," you can argue, much more easily, that Cloudflare has no business deciding what content it offers its services to.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > What's up is down and down is up. I assume you are vehemently on the side those wedding cake bakers who refused to make a gay wedding cake, then? The issue of limited discrimination protections on specified axes for public accommodations is a thorny one especially when it comes to expressive acts; there's plenty of room for debate on what axes should be protected, but a general non-discrimination rule for political ideology has never been seriously suggested, and would arguably run afoul of the first amendment. > If you can argue that some random wedding cake bakers are part of "critical wedding baking infrastructure and must therefore be compelled to make a gay cake," That's not the legal basis; a specific protection from sexual orientation discrimination in public accommodations (in state law in the state in question) is.
    - deleted 9y ago
- awinder 9y ago
  Cool when can I come over to your house and spout crazypants shit?
  - MichaelGG 9y ago
    As soon as his house becomes a major content-neutral platform that you practically need to use to publish online.
- mbillie1 9y ago
  > Free speech is a cultural value I might equally make the point that "not overtly calling for the forcible deportation of non-whites from the US" is a cultural value.
Clubber 9y ago
Every time someone says that, I just hear "I'm defending censorship." Is that what you are doing, or am I just overly sensitive? I mean everyone on here knows this, yet every time someone feels they need to say it. We aren't debating what the first amendment protects, we are debating on wether it's good for our country to have all internet speech controlled by a handful of conglomerates. This is going to sound unfair, but it's not unlike saying, "Sure slavery is immoral, but it's legal! The Supreme Court said so!"
- breadbox 9y ago
  If you label "not amplifying someone" as censorship, then there is obviously no such thing as uncensored free speech for everyone. The question then becomes who you step up to defend, and who you quietly ignore, when someone gets amplified over them.
  - default-kramer 9y ago
    It's not about amplifying someone. There is a difference between ignoring someone and silencing them. Cloudflare's move seems more like silencing than ignoring to me. Maybe I'm too optimistic, but I think everyone should be able to put their (sometimes terrible) opinions on the internet, and we'll trust society to decide which ideas are terrible and should be ignored.
    - breadbox 9y ago
      Cloudflare is refusing to help someone spread their message. Again, if you call that censorship, then I'm not sure where you draw the line, as almost every speech act involves taking space away from other speech acts. Particularly when you're talking about sites like Daily Stormer, which are explicitly used to organize acts of censorship against voices they don't like. I don't think one can coherently take a neutral stance at that level. If not helping Daily Stormer disseminate their message is branded as censorship, but Daily Stormers acts of bullying and threads of violence are not, then I would say that that definition of censorship needs to be re-evaluated.
    - 9y ago
joelrunyon 9y ago
Seems like this is debateable at least - considering the ACLU is filing a lawsuit against DC's transit situation for not placing Milo's ads they agreed to post - http://nypost.com/2017/08/10/milo-yiannopoulos-gains-aclu-support-in-free-speech-lawsuit/ http://nypost.com/2017/08/10/milo-yiannopoulos-gains-aclu-su... What counts as "spreading"? Do cell phone companies kick off customers with views they disagree with? Where is the line?
- pcl 9y ago
  That suit is filed against a government agency. Free speech protections in the US constitution are focused on preventing the government from stifling speech. These protections do not apply to private citizens or corporations.
  - joelrunyon 9y ago
    Ah - good clarification. Did not know the specific status (if it was actually the agency or a company that provided ads). Thanks.
- astrodust 9y ago
  It depends on where the line in the sand is, or if that kind of discrimination is legal or not. If AT&T wanted to terminate service to the Stormer organization they could do it without consequence, it's not their responsibility to provide coverage to anyone plus dog like they were under regulation. It's a free market. Stormer can find someone else.
aphextron 9y ago
(Playing devil's advocate here) But perhaps the web has reached a point where we have to consider it as a public service. And as such should be subject to free speech laws. There is precedent for this with the "equal time rule" for broadcast networks regulated by the FCC which guarantees air time to opposing political candidates during an election. I could easily see an argument to be made for forcing service providers to dedicate a portion of there resources to dissenting opinion on these grounds. Although obviously the line must be drawn at hate speech, I shudder to imagine a world where acceptable content for the web is determined by the whim of an executive who "woke up in a mood". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > But perhaps the web has reached a point where we have to consider it as a public setvice. To the extent that some web-related service is essential to effective communication via the web and provided by a monopoly or oligopoly , whether global or within some clear boundaries, that seems to make sense. ISPs certainly fit that. Domain registrars don't. Web hosts don't. CDN’s probably don't. Any of these could change with evolving market conditions.
- nrb 9y ago
  The equal time rule exists because they are broadcasting on finite wireless spectrum that belongs to the public. It does not apply here.
- mattnewton 9y ago
  Nazi's aren't a protected class. I don't have to sell you server space. But I also don't have the right to knock down your own server, should you set one up on the public internet.
  - vopi 9y ago
    So what if no ISP wants to give them inet?
    - 9y ago
dragonwriter 9y ago
In fact, free speech means that no private entity is compelled to help spread ideas they don't want to spread, outside of situations (mostly regulated monopolies) where a “private” entity acts as a quasi-public one.
rgossiaux 9y ago
This response always strikes me as a huge cop-out. The phrase "free speech" can refer not just to the legal first amendment right but also to the more general societal principle. Nobody has claimed or will claim that Cloudflare's actions here violate the first amendment. The "free speech" discussion is not about whether they can do this, but whether they should.
- 9935c101ab17a66 9y ago
  No, it's not. Wiki: Freedom of speech is the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction. Cloudflare (a private business) terminating their relationship with the Daily Stormer after members of the Daily Stormer deliberately and publicly mischaracterized the nature of said relationship does not constitute censorship or societal sanction.
- MaxfordAndSons 9y ago
  It's sort of disconcerting to admit this but recent events have me reevaluating the utility of unvarnished free speech as a societal value. Taken to it's extremity, it's given us corporate personhood via Citizens United, and the codification of the principle that you (private or corporate personage) are entitled to speak freely at whatever volume you can afford to, including explicitly politicized speech. But more abstractly and insidiously, the value has mutated to give license to liars and manipulators of all kinds. I know there's no way to enforce factual speech in daily life, but the Western ethos of unvarnished free speech has come to mean we tolerate people and companies that just outright lie and manipulate all day every to make a living or a shareholder profit. Sure, the left leaning media makes fun of Fox News or gets worked up about Breitbart, but we have no recourse to the psychological and structural damage they do to our society through their dishonesty. And most average Joes (of whatever political stripe) shrug and say "Hey it's America, we believe in free speech here."
  - michaelchisari 9y ago
    What you and a lot of us are experiencing right now is what Karl Popper called "The Paradox of Tolerance". Total free speech as an ideal (not as a legal framework) creates a paradox where it implores people to tolerate the speech of groups that actively intend to destroy free speech (both legally and ideally), such as fascist groups. There's a decent video explanation here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oH_JRcatCTk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oH_JRcatCTk
camus2 9y ago
> Free speech does not mean a company has to take part in spreading it :). Yes and no, that's why phone companies or internet providers are regulated in a certain fashion, so they can't deny you certain basic services. Imagine you are a controversial figure and all phone companies conspire to deny you a phone number just because they don't like what you say. Or all postal services refuse to deliver your mails. So some line of businesses are deemed of public utility despite being private and have to follow certain regulations.
- kelnos 9y ago
  That would indeed be a problem. But that's not what's happened here. CloudFlare (or any CDN, for that matter) does not provide access. CF terminating their account did not remove their ability to speak. They have many other options. Regulations around ISPs and telecom providers exist specifically because there are often no other options.
  - camus2 9y ago
    You're forgetting the message I'm answering to > Free speech does not mean a company has to take part in spreading it :). IS false in practice. Some private companies cannot suppress speech.
    - kelnos 9y ago
      Perhaps I'm missing that, but that portion of your post isn't really correct either. Most companies can suppress speech. Some -- which are few, in relative terms -- are regulated and barred from doing so, sure. So you may be "technically correct", but that's not particularly useful here. Most companies (including CF) can, and IMO should, suppress speech that they find reprehensible. It's a difficult line to walk, but ignoring the problem is cowardly, and tacitly condones bad behavior.
CaptSpify 9y ago
This always sounded so silly to me. Are they legally allowed to refuse service to them? According to the law: absolutely. But that has no bearing on whether or not we are allowed to criticize them.
chroem- 9y ago
>Free speech does not mean a company has to take part in spreading it :). I see you're not a big fan of net neutrality. This is also the same line of reasoning that has been applied to deny service to gay couples and people of color. You can't discriminate based on ideological or social factors, however ludicrous someone's position may be.
- _euac 9y ago
  Net neutrality has nothing to do with this issue. You could have net neutrality ("free circulation for bits" if you will) and as long as no hosting providers want to take your content, you won't be able to publish them.

by bwb 9y ago

jquery 9y ago

You're confusing free speech with the first amendment. Free speech is a cultural value says that controversial speech shouldn't be censored, rather it should be debated, condemned, or ignored. The first amendment guarantees the government will uphold this value. You are perfectly correct that private companies can throw the value of free speech in the dumpster if the CEO wakes up in a bad mood.

mindcrime 9y ago
The first amendment guarantees the government will uphold this value. More like "The first amendment purports to guarantee that the government will uphold this value."
- mindcrime 9y ago
  OK, I'm usually the last to complain about downvoting, but this is ridiculous. That our government routinely fails to uphold the principle of free speech is not even remotely a controversial position... so perhaps some of you folks would like to explain what your argument is? Remember, a "first amendment" in and of itself has absolutely zero power to guarantee anything. Our government violates many of the provisions of the Constitution on a daily basis. "Free speech zones" anybody? Warrantless wiretapping? Civil asset forfeiture? Etc, etc., etc. At the end of the day, the old line "the Constitution is just a piece of paper" really is true. It's actually down to us, "We The People" to hold our government accountable and make sure it upholds the principles we value. We can't just abdicate our responsibility and say "Oh, it's in the 1st amendment, so I'm sure they'll do the right thing."
chickenfries 9y ago
Free speech, the cultural value, can only be protected by the government. The market doesn't demand things like liberty and justice.
- stale2002 9y ago
  It can be protected in lots of ways! For example, society can start firing people who make arguments against free speech. We could start banning their accounts on the internet, and refusing to serve them at restaurants. Your freedom to support censorship doesn't mean that you are free from consequences! ;)
  - chickenfries 9y ago
    > For example, society can start firing people who make arguments against free speech. We could start banning their accounts on the internet, and refusing to serve them at restaurants. Yep, and at that point the only recourse you would have would be the government, right? > Your freedom to support censorship doesn't mean that you are free from consequences! ;) Your smugness suggests that you think this is surprising to me, rather than being my entire point. Businesses will do whatever they want, in their own self-interest. If we want them to do something else because we as a society value something like free speech, your options are to ignore it or to pass a law. If you're concerned about CloudFlare's ability to censor the internet, take it up with the government, because CloudFlare's commitment to free speech is good only as long as it makes business sense for them.
    - stale2002 9y ago
      Perhaps we could make a law. But at this point I think that it be better to just have a free market retaliatory war of "social consequences". IE, the pro censorship people get named and shamed and fired from their jobs (starting with the most extreme first) Then the pro censorship people would try to fix the problem with laws, ect.
      - chickenfries 9y ago
dragonwriter 9y ago
> Free speech is a cultural value says that controversial speech shouldn't be censored No, free speech (and the related freedoms of press, religion, and association) is a cultural value that says every member of society should be free to choose which ideas they will promote and which people they will associate with, applying their own values. That absolutely includes choosing which ideas from other people they will participate in spreading, which, yes, is censorship (but not public censorship), but remains absolutely central to the ideal of free speech. Freedom of speech is not entitlement to have others cooperate in spreading your speech.
- jquery 9y ago
  Wow! What's up is down and down is up. I assume you are vehemently on the side those wedding cake bakers who refused to make a gay wedding cake, then? Once a private communications provider becomes recognized as communications infrastructure, they lose the right to police content that goes through their infrastructure. For example, my ISP, even though it participates in "spreading" my ideas, has no say in the matter. If you can argue that some random wedding cake bakers are part of "critical wedding baking infrastructure and must therefore be compelled to make a gay cake," you can argue, much more easily, that Cloudflare has no business deciding what content it offers its services to.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > What's up is down and down is up. I assume you are vehemently on the side those wedding cake bakers who refused to make a gay wedding cake, then? The issue of limited discrimination protections on specified axes for public accommodations is a thorny one especially when it comes to expressive acts; there's plenty of room for debate on what axes should be protected, but a general non-discrimination rule for political ideology has never been seriously suggested, and would arguably run afoul of the first amendment. > If you can argue that some random wedding cake bakers are part of "critical wedding baking infrastructure and must therefore be compelled to make a gay cake," That's not the legal basis; a specific protection from sexual orientation discrimination in public accommodations (in state law in the state in question) is.
  - deleted 9y ago
awinder 9y ago
Cool when can I come over to your house and spout crazypants shit?
- MichaelGG 9y ago
  As soon as his house becomes a major content-neutral platform that you practically need to use to publish online.
mbillie1 9y ago
> Free speech is a cultural value I might equally make the point that "not overtly calling for the forcible deportation of non-whites from the US" is a cultural value.

Clubber 9y ago

Every time someone says that, I just hear "I'm defending censorship." Is that what you are doing, or am I just overly sensitive? I mean everyone on here knows this, yet every time someone feels they need to say it. We aren't debating what the first amendment protects, we are debating on wether it's good for our country to have all internet speech controlled by a handful of conglomerates. This is going to sound unfair, but it's not unlike saying, "Sure slavery is immoral, but it's legal! The Supreme Court said so!"

breadbox 9y ago
If you label "not amplifying someone" as censorship, then there is obviously no such thing as uncensored free speech for everyone. The question then becomes who you step up to defend, and who you quietly ignore, when someone gets amplified over them.
- default-kramer 9y ago
  It's not about amplifying someone. There is a difference between ignoring someone and silencing them. Cloudflare's move seems more like silencing than ignoring to me. Maybe I'm too optimistic, but I think everyone should be able to put their (sometimes terrible) opinions on the internet, and we'll trust society to decide which ideas are terrible and should be ignored.
  - breadbox 9y ago
    Cloudflare is refusing to help someone spread their message. Again, if you call that censorship, then I'm not sure where you draw the line, as almost every speech act involves taking space away from other speech acts. Particularly when you're talking about sites like Daily Stormer, which are explicitly used to organize acts of censorship against voices they don't like. I don't think one can coherently take a neutral stance at that level. If not helping Daily Stormer disseminate their message is branded as censorship, but Daily Stormers acts of bullying and threads of violence are not, then I would say that that definition of censorship needs to be re-evaluated.
  - 9y ago

joelrunyon 9y ago

Seems like this is debateable at least - considering the ACLU is filing a lawsuit against DC's transit situation for not placing Milo's ads they agreed to post - http://nypost.com/2017/08/10/milo-yiannopoulos-gains-aclu-support-in-free-speech-lawsuit/ http://nypost.com/2017/08/10/milo-yiannopoulos-gains-aclu-su... What counts as "spreading"? Do cell phone companies kick off customers with views they disagree with? Where is the line?

pcl 9y ago
That suit is filed against a government agency. Free speech protections in the US constitution are focused on preventing the government from stifling speech. These protections do not apply to private citizens or corporations.
- joelrunyon 9y ago
  Ah - good clarification. Did not know the specific status (if it was actually the agency or a company that provided ads). Thanks.
astrodust 9y ago
It depends on where the line in the sand is, or if that kind of discrimination is legal or not. If AT&T wanted to terminate service to the Stormer organization they could do it without consequence, it's not their responsibility to provide coverage to anyone plus dog like they were under regulation. It's a free market. Stormer can find someone else.

aphextron 9y ago

(Playing devil's advocate here) But perhaps the web has reached a point where we have to consider it as a public service. And as such should be subject to free speech laws. There is precedent for this with the "equal time rule" for broadcast networks regulated by the FCC which guarantees air time to opposing political candidates during an election. I could easily see an argument to be made for forcing service providers to dedicate a portion of there resources to dissenting opinion on these grounds. Although obviously the line must be drawn at hate speech, I shudder to imagine a world where acceptable content for the web is determined by the whim of an executive who "woke up in a mood". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule

dragonwriter 9y ago
> But perhaps the web has reached a point where we have to consider it as a public setvice. To the extent that some web-related service is essential to effective communication via the web and provided by a monopoly or oligopoly , whether global or within some clear boundaries, that seems to make sense. ISPs certainly fit that. Domain registrars don't. Web hosts don't. CDN’s probably don't. Any of these could change with evolving market conditions.
nrb 9y ago
The equal time rule exists because they are broadcasting on finite wireless spectrum that belongs to the public. It does not apply here.
mattnewton 9y ago
Nazi's aren't a protected class. I don't have to sell you server space. But I also don't have the right to knock down your own server, should you set one up on the public internet.
- vopi 9y ago
  So what if no ISP wants to give them inet?
  - 9y ago

dragonwriter 9y ago

In fact, free speech means that no private entity is compelled to help spread ideas they don't want to spread, outside of situations (mostly regulated monopolies) where a “private” entity acts as a quasi-public one.

rgossiaux 9y ago

This response always strikes me as a huge cop-out. The phrase "free speech" can refer not just to the legal first amendment right but also to the more general societal principle. Nobody has claimed or will claim that Cloudflare's actions here violate the first amendment. The "free speech" discussion is not about whether they can do this, but whether they should.

9935c101ab17a66 9y ago
No, it's not. Wiki: Freedom of speech is the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction. Cloudflare (a private business) terminating their relationship with the Daily Stormer after members of the Daily Stormer deliberately and publicly mischaracterized the nature of said relationship does not constitute censorship or societal sanction.
MaxfordAndSons 9y ago
It's sort of disconcerting to admit this but recent events have me reevaluating the utility of unvarnished free speech as a societal value. Taken to it's extremity, it's given us corporate personhood via Citizens United, and the codification of the principle that you (private or corporate personage) are entitled to speak freely at whatever volume you can afford to, including explicitly politicized speech. But more abstractly and insidiously, the value has mutated to give license to liars and manipulators of all kinds. I know there's no way to enforce factual speech in daily life, but the Western ethos of unvarnished free speech has come to mean we tolerate people and companies that just outright lie and manipulate all day every to make a living or a shareholder profit. Sure, the left leaning media makes fun of Fox News or gets worked up about Breitbart, but we have no recourse to the psychological and structural damage they do to our society through their dishonesty. And most average Joes (of whatever political stripe) shrug and say "Hey it's America, we believe in free speech here."
- michaelchisari 9y ago
  What you and a lot of us are experiencing right now is what Karl Popper called "The Paradox of Tolerance". Total free speech as an ideal (not as a legal framework) creates a paradox where it implores people to tolerate the speech of groups that actively intend to destroy free speech (both legally and ideally), such as fascist groups. There's a decent video explanation here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oH_JRcatCTk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oH_JRcatCTk

camus2 9y ago

> Free speech does not mean a company has to take part in spreading it :). Yes and no, that's why phone companies or internet providers are regulated in a certain fashion, so they can't deny you certain basic services. Imagine you are a controversial figure and all phone companies conspire to deny you a phone number just because they don't like what you say. Or all postal services refuse to deliver your mails. So some line of businesses are deemed of public utility despite being private and have to follow certain regulations.

kelnos 9y ago
That would indeed be a problem. But that's not what's happened here. CloudFlare (or any CDN, for that matter) does not provide access. CF terminating their account did not remove their ability to speak. They have many other options. Regulations around ISPs and telecom providers exist specifically because there are often no other options.
- camus2 9y ago
  You're forgetting the message I'm answering to > Free speech does not mean a company has to take part in spreading it :). IS false in practice. Some private companies cannot suppress speech.
  - kelnos 9y ago
    Perhaps I'm missing that, but that portion of your post isn't really correct either. Most companies can suppress speech. Some -- which are few, in relative terms -- are regulated and barred from doing so, sure. So you may be "technically correct", but that's not particularly useful here. Most companies (including CF) can, and IMO should, suppress speech that they find reprehensible. It's a difficult line to walk, but ignoring the problem is cowardly, and tacitly condones bad behavior.

CaptSpify 9y ago

This always sounded so silly to me. Are they legally allowed to refuse service to them? According to the law: absolutely. But that has no bearing on whether or not we are allowed to criticize them.

chroem- 9y ago

>Free speech does not mean a company has to take part in spreading it :). I see you're not a big fan of net neutrality. This is also the same line of reasoning that has been applied to deny service to gay couples and people of color. You can't discriminate based on ideological or social factors, however ludicrous someone's position may be.

_euac 9y ago
Net neutrality has nothing to do with this issue. You could have net neutrality ("free circulation for bits" if you will) and as long as no hosting providers want to take your content, you won't be able to publish them.