5 ms·

The main difference we are seeing in this new world of large tech companies is that the role of the "judge" is diminished. Groups figure out the fine lines on w

The main difference we are seeing in this new world of large tech companies is that the role of the "judge" is diminished. Groups figure out the fine lines on which to make judgment, but only as a matter of internal company policy, behind closed doors, which none of us get to have a say in or even read the guidelines. When a judge sentences you to prison, you know pretty well exactly what sentence of which law was the one that did it. When deplatformed from these private-but-ever-growing services, vague "ToS violations" is the best you get. Very easy for "rule of law" to become "rule of man."

gamblor956 8y ago
A website ban isn't even remotely the same thing as a legal sanction. If you want to control the platform, create your own. You'll need the hardware and the software, and it could get expensive. But if you want to spread hate speech or libel, suck up the cost. If you want to be on someone else's platform you accept the restrictions of using that platform. Hate speech is on the list of almost every major platform (except Twitter).
- Covzire 8y ago
  As someone else pointed out, what if they go after your DNS registrar? Your SSL certificate provider? Where will it end? De platforming people who spew vile (but legal) speech isn't good for society and it's contrary to the spirit of the first amendment.
  - anigbrowl 8y ago
    Well it ends with (generic) you running a hidden service on TOR that only committed misanthropes are willing to participate in on a regular basis, and looking over your shoulder in public a lot. De platforming people who spew vile (but legal) speech isn't good for society On the contrary, I think it's very good for the same reason I would want to drain an abscess or excise a tumor. The vile speech that you mention isn't harmless, and the people targeted by vile speech are part of society. What benefit is achieved that exceeds the costs imposed upon them?
- jewelthief91 8y ago
  > A website ban isn't even remotely the same thing as a legal sanction. The Supreme Court seemed to have very different take (Packingham v. North Carolina): "Social media allows users to gain access to information and communicate with one another on any subject that might come to mind. With one broad stroke, North Carolina bars access to what for many are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge. Foreclosing access to social media altogether thus prevents users from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights."
  - gamblor956 8y ago
    North Carolina was doing the banning, not the website. AKA, it was a government sanction... North Carolina was also banning convicts' access to multiple websites, so it was more of an internet ban. (It helps to read the entire case.)
    - jewelthief91 8y ago
      That wasn't the point of my comment. Yes 1A only applies to government censorship, however the SC clearly view access to the internet and social media as necessary for full exercise of 1A rights. It's now on the legislature to actually write the laws that would grant free speech rights to internet users.
aftbit 8y ago
In 2002, only about 5% of incarcerated felons in the US received a trial[1]. The other 95% pleaded guilty, likely in the face of overwhelming pressure, insufficient legal representation, and the threat of many more years in jail if they took their case to trial and loss. 1: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/sc0204st.pdf https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/sc0204st.pdf
- gamblor956 8y ago
  Almost all of the people who plead guilty are actually guilty. (I was a former public defender. Most of our clients admitted to committing the crime, they just wanted to minimize any fines or the time spent in jail/prison.) The Hollywood trope of someone pleading guilty to protect someone else doesn't happen in real life--it's a disbarrable offense in most states for a prosecutor to suggest that they'd imprison a family member (such as a spouse) for X crime if the defendant doesn't plead guilty to Y crime. Moreover, plea bargains, by their nature, apply only to the defendant; other individuals are not parties to the bargain and aren't bound to (or protected by) it. In some states, inadequate representation is a serious concern. These are mostly red states. People there have repeatedly, over the course of decades, chosen to underfund public defenders. Frequently, this is despite having friends or family who have been arrested and gone through the criminal process. If, after several decades and personal exposure to the inadequacies of the system, they choose to screw themselves over, why should I, in a state willing to fund its public defenders, spend more of my money when those people won't? The threat of increased jail time is a popular online meme not borne out in real life. Armchair lawyers don't realize that you can plead at any time before the the verdict--literally, up to the second it's read out it. This means that you can wait to see how the case is going before deciding whether to plead. But again, most people are actually guilty, accept that their is a punishment to pay for their crime, and simply want to move on.

gamblor956 8y ago

A website ban isn't even remotely the same thing as a legal sanction. If you want to control the platform, create your own. You'll need the hardware and the software, and it could get expensive. But if you want to spread hate speech or libel, suck up the cost. If you want to be on someone else's platform you accept the restrictions of using that platform. Hate speech is on the list of almost every major platform (except Twitter).

Covzire 8y ago
As someone else pointed out, what if they go after your DNS registrar? Your SSL certificate provider? Where will it end? De platforming people who spew vile (but legal) speech isn't good for society and it's contrary to the spirit of the first amendment.
- anigbrowl 8y ago
  Well it ends with (generic) you running a hidden service on TOR that only committed misanthropes are willing to participate in on a regular basis, and looking over your shoulder in public a lot. De platforming people who spew vile (but legal) speech isn't good for society On the contrary, I think it's very good for the same reason I would want to drain an abscess or excise a tumor. The vile speech that you mention isn't harmless, and the people targeted by vile speech are part of society. What benefit is achieved that exceeds the costs imposed upon them?
jewelthief91 8y ago
> A website ban isn't even remotely the same thing as a legal sanction. The Supreme Court seemed to have very different take (Packingham v. North Carolina): "Social media allows users to gain access to information and communicate with one another on any subject that might come to mind. With one broad stroke, North Carolina bars access to what for many are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge. Foreclosing access to social media altogether thus prevents users from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights."
- gamblor956 8y ago
  North Carolina was doing the banning, not the website. AKA, it was a government sanction... North Carolina was also banning convicts' access to multiple websites, so it was more of an internet ban. (It helps to read the entire case.)
  - jewelthief91 8y ago
    That wasn't the point of my comment. Yes 1A only applies to government censorship, however the SC clearly view access to the internet and social media as necessary for full exercise of 1A rights. It's now on the legislature to actually write the laws that would grant free speech rights to internet users.

aftbit 8y ago

In 2002, only about 5% of incarcerated felons in the US received a trial[1]. The other 95% pleaded guilty, likely in the face of overwhelming pressure, insufficient legal representation, and the threat of many more years in jail if they took their case to trial and loss. 1: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/sc0204st.pdf https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/sc0204st.pdf

gamblor956 8y ago
Almost all of the people who plead guilty are actually guilty. (I was a former public defender. Most of our clients admitted to committing the crime, they just wanted to minimize any fines or the time spent in jail/prison.) The Hollywood trope of someone pleading guilty to protect someone else doesn't happen in real life--it's a disbarrable offense in most states for a prosecutor to suggest that they'd imprison a family member (such as a spouse) for X crime if the defendant doesn't plead guilty to Y crime. Moreover, plea bargains, by their nature, apply only to the defendant; other individuals are not parties to the bargain and aren't bound to (or protected by) it. In some states, inadequate representation is a serious concern. These are mostly red states. People there have repeatedly, over the course of decades, chosen to underfund public defenders. Frequently, this is despite having friends or family who have been arrested and gone through the criminal process. If, after several decades and personal exposure to the inadequacies of the system, they choose to screw themselves over, why should I, in a state willing to fund its public defenders, spend more of my money when those people won't? The threat of increased jail time is a popular online meme not borne out in real life. Armchair lawyers don't realize that you can plead at any time before the the verdict--literally, up to the second it's read out it. This means that you can wait to see how the case is going before deciding whether to plead. But again, most people are actually guilty, accept that their is a punishment to pay for their crime, and simply want to move on.