4 ms·

> Do you think an expensive restaurant should be able to deny service to a guy who comes in shirtless even though it is completely legal for him to walk around

by mcbits 9y ago

> Do you think an expensive restaurant should be able to deny service to a guy who comes in shirtless even though it is completely legal for him to walk around like that? If the restaurant benefits from special safe harbor exemptions to food safety laws because they have so many customers from all walks of life that they supposedly can't spare the resources to play hygiene police while serving everyone on time, then no.

hsod 9y ago
I assume you're referring to copyright laws and safe-harbor provisions. But aren't copyright laws another way of suppressing free expression? It seems contradictory to say that it's not ok for Cloudflare to suppress the free expression of Nazis while implicitly supporting the suppression of the expression of file sharers, remixers, and other violators of copyright who want to use Cloudflare. Furthermore, you seem to be arguing that the explicitly political expression of Cloudflare's CEO should be suppressed using the power of the state (by suggesting that it should open them up to legal liability).
- mcbits 9y ago
  I wasn't referring to copyright laws. If someone in the "move bits from point A to point B" business wants to make it their responsibility to suppress activities that are legal, purely on ideological grounds, then they should also shoulder some responsibility for the activities they're facilitating that actually are illegal and actively harmful. I mean, priorities! Otherwise they should stick to moving bits from point A to point B, cooperating with lawful orders when required.
  - hsod 9y ago
    You mean beyond taking it down after it's reported? Surely they already do that. Are you suggesting that in order for them to be allowed to turn down Stormfront's business they must take on the legal obligation of actively screening all their content for illegal material? I don't see the connection or justification.

by mcbits 9y ago

hsod 9y ago

I assume you're referring to copyright laws and safe-harbor provisions. But aren't copyright laws another way of suppressing free expression? It seems contradictory to say that it's not ok for Cloudflare to suppress the free expression of Nazis while implicitly supporting the suppression of the expression of file sharers, remixers, and other violators of copyright who want to use Cloudflare. Furthermore, you seem to be arguing that the explicitly political expression of Cloudflare's CEO should be suppressed using the power of the state (by suggesting that it should open them up to legal liability).

mcbits 9y ago
I wasn't referring to copyright laws. If someone in the "move bits from point A to point B" business wants to make it their responsibility to suppress activities that are legal, purely on ideological grounds, then they should also shoulder some responsibility for the activities they're facilitating that actually are illegal and actively harmful. I mean, priorities! Otherwise they should stick to moving bits from point A to point B, cooperating with lawful orders when required.
- hsod 9y ago
  You mean beyond taking it down after it's reported? Surely they already do that. Are you suggesting that in order for them to be allowed to turn down Stormfront's business they must take on the legal obligation of actively screening all their content for illegal material? I don't see the connection or justification.