3 ms·

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 doe

• 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.