3 ms·

Freedom of speech does not give the freedom to violate terms of service. The first paragraph of the complaint states that the site was not compliant and apparen

Freedom of speech does not give the freedom to violate terms of service. The first paragraph of the complaint states that the site was not compliant and apparently GoDaddy agreed.

estro 8y ago
Sure, this argument may be valid here. At what point do we explicitly allow a website's ToS to supersede the Constitution though? Denial of rights is a single-edged sword easily flipped.
- travmatt 8y ago
  This is a nonsensical argument- the first amendment doesn’t apply to private corporations, unless your argument is that any random internet company is literally the United States government.
  - estro 8y ago
    Can you provide something to support your claim? Why would a private corporation not be subject to Constitutional law?
    - mkempe 8y ago
      The US Constitution enumerates specific powers granted to the Federal Government, and generally limits its powers. It does not restrict the rights of individuals or of associations thereof (generally both are free to trade, or not, with others). It's a flawed document, intended to be a practical implementation of the limited-government ideals espoused in the Declaration of Independence: that the sole proper purpose of government is to secure our individual rights.
    - travmatt 8y ago
      “”” Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. “””
- fluxsauce 8y ago
  There is no constitutional right to incite violence.
mkempe 8y ago
If company A is entitled to discriminate against party B because of the things the latter says and/or does -- how and why do you stop business C from discriminating against party D because of their sexual orientation. A: hosting company (GoDaddy today) B: anyone (Spencer today) C: bakery D: gay couple I think a Twitter equivalent of this provocative argument is: now do this for restaurants refusing to serve certain people because of the color of their skin.

Freedom of speech does not give the freedom to violate terms of service. The first paragraph of the complaint states that the site was not compliant and apparently GoDaddy agreed.

estro 8y ago

Sure, this argument may be valid here. At what point do we explicitly allow a website's ToS to supersede the Constitution though? Denial of rights is a single-edged sword easily flipped.

travmatt 8y ago
This is a nonsensical argument- the first amendment doesn’t apply to private corporations, unless your argument is that any random internet company is literally the United States government.
- estro 8y ago
  Can you provide something to support your claim? Why would a private corporation not be subject to Constitutional law?
  - mkempe 8y ago
    The US Constitution enumerates specific powers granted to the Federal Government, and generally limits its powers. It does not restrict the rights of individuals or of associations thereof (generally both are free to trade, or not, with others). It's a flawed document, intended to be a practical implementation of the limited-government ideals espoused in the Declaration of Independence: that the sole proper purpose of government is to secure our individual rights.
  - travmatt 8y ago
    “”” Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. “””
fluxsauce 8y ago
There is no constitutional right to incite violence.

mkempe 8y ago

If company A is entitled to discriminate against party B because of the things the latter says and/or does -- how and why do you stop business C from discriminating against party D because of their sexual orientation. A: hosting company (GoDaddy today) B: anyone (Spencer today) C: bakery D: gay couple I think a Twitter equivalent of this provocative argument is: now do this for restaurants refusing to serve certain people because of the color of their skin.