4 ms·

It doesn't violate someone's right to free speech or any other right for a company to fail to provide a service to them. A company having to provide service to

by yoak 16y ago

It doesn't violate someone's right to free speech or any other right for a company to fail to provide a service to them. A company having to provide service to some particular entity only violates one set of rights - those of the company.

andrewcooke 16y ago
I'm not sure what your point is here? You're saying that you can define freedom of speech in a narrow way so that Amazon is off the hook. Great. But that doesn't change what they've done - it just makes you look like a lawyer making excuses for the inexcusable.
- bbqdeli 16y ago
  It's not 'inexcusable' to decide that it's better business to honor a request not to host wikileaks than it is to continue hosting it. When I bought my AMZN I was buying a business, not a political lobbying organization. I'd view it as inexcusable if their management ignored their duties to me, so they could take some very controversial stand that would be likely to shave a few points off their revenues.
- pyre 16y ago
  It sounds more like this: "If Amazon is wrong for refusing service to someone that is hosting potentially-controversial content, then that implies that no hosting company can refuse service to such a person. I.e. that person is 'untouchable.'" This seems to cross lines with the 'Affirmative Action'-type arguments: that in an effort to 'make up' for past wrong against black people we are making it impossible to refuse X (where X could be employment, etc) to a black person, even if the reason isn't because of their skin color. {update} I was only attempting to clarify what I thought that the parent poster (gp to this post) was getting at.
roc 16y ago
Luckily, no-one's rights are at issue and no-one's going to be forced to do anything. It's a simple question of whether people want to support a company that acts in ways they don't approve of. A boycott is simply voting with your wallet. There's no rule that it's only right or just to boycott if laws have been broken. I'd be surprised if more than a tiny minority of boycotts were based on corporate behavior that wasn't 100% legal.
- yoak 16y ago
  I agree with everything you say here. I only take issue with claims that Amazon was violating someone's right to free speech. I no more think people shouldn't boycott Amazon if their dislike of Amazon's decision makes them not want to use their service than I do that Amazon should provide hosting to someone if they don't regard it in their interest to do so. Calling it a violation of free speech waters down the impact of the phrase as it covers real governments doing it with real violence. I went to college during during the height of the political correctness bubble and was exposed to nuts who called holding a door open for a woman "rape." I couldn't imagine any more crass or insensitive action with respect to real rape victims.

by yoak 16y ago

andrewcooke 16y ago

I'm not sure what your point is here? You're saying that you can define freedom of speech in a narrow way so that Amazon is off the hook. Great. But that doesn't change what they've done - it just makes you look like a lawyer making excuses for the inexcusable.

bbqdeli 16y ago
It's not 'inexcusable' to decide that it's better business to honor a request not to host wikileaks than it is to continue hosting it. When I bought my AMZN I was buying a business, not a political lobbying organization. I'd view it as inexcusable if their management ignored their duties to me, so they could take some very controversial stand that would be likely to shave a few points off their revenues.
pyre 16y ago
It sounds more like this: "If Amazon is wrong for refusing service to someone that is hosting potentially-controversial content, then that implies that no hosting company can refuse service to such a person. I.e. that person is 'untouchable.'" This seems to cross lines with the 'Affirmative Action'-type arguments: that in an effort to 'make up' for past wrong against black people we are making it impossible to refuse X (where X could be employment, etc) to a black person, even if the reason isn't because of their skin color. {update} I was only attempting to clarify what I thought that the parent poster (gp to this post) was getting at.

roc 16y ago

Luckily, no-one's rights are at issue and no-one's going to be forced to do anything. It's a simple question of whether people want to support a company that acts in ways they don't approve of. A boycott is simply voting with your wallet. There's no rule that it's only right or just to boycott if laws have been broken. I'd be surprised if more than a tiny minority of boycotts were based on corporate behavior that wasn't 100% legal.

yoak 16y ago
I agree with everything you say here. I only take issue with claims that Amazon was violating someone's right to free speech. I no more think people shouldn't boycott Amazon if their dislike of Amazon's decision makes them not want to use their service than I do that Amazon should provide hosting to someone if they don't regard it in their interest to do so. Calling it a violation of free speech waters down the impact of the phrase as it covers real governments doing it with real violence. I went to college during during the height of the political correctness bubble and was exposed to nuts who called holding a door open for a woman "rape." I couldn't imagine any more crass or insensitive action with respect to real rape victims.