3 ms·

I’m not familiar with Canadian law, but we can take an illustrative example from US law. Say you want to stand in the town square with a sign and talk to anyone

I’m not familiar with Canadian law, but we can take an illustrative example from US law. Say you want to stand in the town square with a sign and talk to anyone who will listen about Yemen, or Black Lives Matter, or Universal Basic Income. That is your right, and it’s protected by the First Amendment. Setting up a website where you write about your opinions is likewise protected. Eliminating net neutrality potentially makes it much harder for people’s voices to be heard, much like the city government suddenly converting all roads into toll roads for the duration of your protest. To me, silencing the voices of the people, or allowing them to speak but not to be heard, impinges on freedom of speech and assembly.

dingo_bat 9y ago
> Setting up a website where you write about your opinions is likewise protected. Eliminating net neutrality potentially makes it much harder for people’s voices to be heard All the protections and net neutrality didn't help The Daily Stormer.
- Can_Not 9y ago
  Net Neutrality helped The Daily Stormer alot. There are no known instances of any ISP, regional monopolies or not, throttling or censoring The Daily Stormer on behalf of the ISP's customers. You might be dishonestly conflating NN into a recent event where The Daily Stormer couldn't find a web host or DNS registrar where inciting violence and terrorism was not prohibited by their terms of service. Whether or not The Daily Stormer has a right to be hosted is a different debate, one that can only had in a world with Net Neutrality.
freeone3000 9y ago
Canadian law allows for governmental content-based restrictions on hate speech. What's hate speech? The government knows it when it sees it. Hosting a nazi rally in Canada won't just have the rally shut down, you'll be criminally prosecuted.
briandear 9y ago
An ISP is my the government. Under your scenario, Facebook should allow all lawful content. A guy standing in the square is in a public square. That same guy could make a website but that doesn’t mean a private company is obliged to host it — that’s a violation of the owner of the private company’s free speech rights. I am not saying anything about NN, but your example is flawed — everyone has a right to speech, but that right doesn’t imply a right to force others to transmit your message.

dingo_bat 9y ago

> Setting up a website where you write about your opinions is likewise protected. Eliminating net neutrality potentially makes it much harder for people’s voices to be heard All the protections and net neutrality didn't help The Daily Stormer.

Can_Not 9y ago
Net Neutrality helped The Daily Stormer alot. There are no known instances of any ISP, regional monopolies or not, throttling or censoring The Daily Stormer on behalf of the ISP's customers. You might be dishonestly conflating NN into a recent event where The Daily Stormer couldn't find a web host or DNS registrar where inciting violence and terrorism was not prohibited by their terms of service. Whether or not The Daily Stormer has a right to be hosted is a different debate, one that can only had in a world with Net Neutrality.

freeone3000 9y ago

Canadian law allows for governmental content-based restrictions on hate speech. What's hate speech? The government knows it when it sees it. Hosting a nazi rally in Canada won't just have the rally shut down, you'll be criminally prosecuted.

briandear 9y ago

An ISP is my the government. Under your scenario, Facebook should allow all lawful content. A guy standing in the square is in a public square. That same guy could make a website but that doesn’t mean a private company is obliged to host it — that’s a violation of the owner of the private company’s free speech rights. I am not saying anything about NN, but your example is flawed — everyone has a right to speech, but that right doesn’t imply a right to force others to transmit your message.