4 ms·

Your example is the gulag example. If you don’t do what the law says, stormtroopers come in and take you away. Thats a free speech issue, but that’s not what’s

Your example is the gulag example. If you don’t do what the law says, stormtroopers come in and take you away. Thats a free speech issue, but that’s not what’s happening here. It’s not even close. It’s not a slippery slope. It’s just… nothing. Nothing is happening here. I tolerate zero suppression. But that’s not what’s at issue here. We are talking about a CDN company refusing business of someone they don’t like, because it exposes them to bad PR and likely liability as well. No one is required to publish your content. I can post my dick all over Facebook, and that’s fine, because that’s not suppression of free speech. I can’t walk into CNN and demand airtime under a flag of free speech either. The closest thing we ever had to an issue of free speech on the Internet was when ICANN was handing over domains to the feds over piracy issues. In that case their was a thin line. In that case there was a discussion to be had. Property was being seized by the government and people were being arrested and imprisoned for what some considered speech. Here there is nothing. Just whiny, uneducated people with no concept of what free speech actually refers to.

Ajedi32 7y ago
No gulag. No stormtroopers. Your message criticizing the military just won't be seen anyone, because the platform you're posting on will censor it. That's suppression of free speech; regardless of whether it's a government or a corporation that's doing it.
- themagician 7y ago
  You totally misunderstand the way the legal system works in the United States. Let’s go ahead and examine your example. Say that a law was passed that required Facebook and others to remove posts critical of the US military. In this example, if Facebook fails to comply, people will be arrested. Facebook would sue the government, saying that the law is unconstitutional as it violates the First Amendment. This would likely become know as something like Facebook et al. vs The United States. Unless we are in a bizarro universe, Facebook would win. In this example, Facebook’s rights, as a publisher, are the ones being trampled on, not yours. It’s not a people’s case. In this scenario you likely don’t even have standing to sue (debatable, I suppose, but that’s a separate discussion entirely). It’s worth noting that the closest thing to this scenario was with the ACSS key years ago. Not quite the same, but similar parties involved along a similar line of thinking. But the issue at hand with Cloudflare isn’t the same. There is no constitutional issue at all. It’s just one business dropping a client. In fact, the only way this could ever turn into a free speech issue, even in principle, is if a law was passed that forced Cloudflare to continue to host 8chan’s content. You should really do some reading about what free speech actually means. You are so far off the mark it’s hard to take you seriously.
  - Ajedi32 7y ago
    Again, Free Speech is not a law, it's a principle. The question of whether or not this hypothetical law would be legal under the current version of the US constitution is irrelevant. To repeat my previous point: assume the same law was passed in North Korea instead of the US. Would the law then be "not a violation of Free Speech" because North Korea has no legal protections for Free Speech?
    - themagician 7y ago
      You misunderstand even the principle or ethos of free speech, even by a radical GNU-style standard. Take a step back, stop being so defensive, and realize you are wrong and you can actually learn something. You seem to care about this, so take it as an opportunity to actually learn what free speech is and what you can do to protect it. Free speech is not some idea by which all companies much publish all content with an equal hand. That's an absurd standard. That's actually antithetical to free speech ideals, as it FORCES companies endorse speech that they, themselves, don't agree with. > To repeat my previous point: assume the same law was passed in North Korea instead of the US. Would the law then be "not a violation of Free Speech" because North Korea has no legal protections for Free Speech? Of course it would. It would be in the US, and it would be in North Korea. North Korea is a great example, and it's not hypothetical. But in North Korea it is illegal for anyone to be critical of the military—not just asking certain publishers to be more selective about what they publish. But none of this has anything to do with Cloudflare. Cloudflare is just a business. It's a non-essential, privately owned company that has nothing to do with the government. If someone from 8chan goes into the local Starbucks and starts screaming about killing Hispanics, Starbucks can ask them to leave. That's not a free speech violation. If this was something like ICANN seizing a domain or the FCC refusing to issue a radio license you could at least make the "slippery slope" case with some kind of loose validity. But we aren't even talking about that. No one has to support your speech. Dell doesn't have to sell you computers for your server farm and Cloudflare doesn't have to sell you CDN services. CNN doesn't have to give you airtime, and Amazon doesn't have to publish your book. You can build a horrific media empire that endorses and promotes the most disgusting and hateful forms of speech imaginable, but NO ONE has to support you in doing that. And, in fact, no one SHOULD be forced to. Just look at Alex Jones. No one has arrested him (minus an incident in New York with him literally screaming into someone's face with a megaphone, which was borderline assault) and no one should. But no one has to support him either.

Ajedi32 7y ago

No gulag. No stormtroopers. Your message criticizing the military just won't be seen anyone, because the platform you're posting on will censor it. That's suppression of free speech; regardless of whether it's a government or a corporation that's doing it.

themagician 7y ago
You totally misunderstand the way the legal system works in the United States. Let’s go ahead and examine your example. Say that a law was passed that required Facebook and others to remove posts critical of the US military. In this example, if Facebook fails to comply, people will be arrested. Facebook would sue the government, saying that the law is unconstitutional as it violates the First Amendment. This would likely become know as something like Facebook et al. vs The United States. Unless we are in a bizarro universe, Facebook would win. In this example, Facebook’s rights, as a publisher, are the ones being trampled on, not yours. It’s not a people’s case. In this scenario you likely don’t even have standing to sue (debatable, I suppose, but that’s a separate discussion entirely). It’s worth noting that the closest thing to this scenario was with the ACSS key years ago. Not quite the same, but similar parties involved along a similar line of thinking. But the issue at hand with Cloudflare isn’t the same. There is no constitutional issue at all. It’s just one business dropping a client. In fact, the only way this could ever turn into a free speech issue, even in principle, is if a law was passed that forced Cloudflare to continue to host 8chan’s content. You should really do some reading about what free speech actually means. You are so far off the mark it’s hard to take you seriously.
- Ajedi32 7y ago
  Again, Free Speech is not a law, it's a principle. The question of whether or not this hypothetical law would be legal under the current version of the US constitution is irrelevant. To repeat my previous point: assume the same law was passed in North Korea instead of the US. Would the law then be "not a violation of Free Speech" because North Korea has no legal protections for Free Speech?
  - themagician 7y ago
    You misunderstand even the principle or ethos of free speech, even by a radical GNU-style standard. Take a step back, stop being so defensive, and realize you are wrong and you can actually learn something. You seem to care about this, so take it as an opportunity to actually learn what free speech is and what you can do to protect it. Free speech is not some idea by which all companies much publish all content with an equal hand. That's an absurd standard. That's actually antithetical to free speech ideals, as it FORCES companies endorse speech that they, themselves, don't agree with. > To repeat my previous point: assume the same law was passed in North Korea instead of the US. Would the law then be "not a violation of Free Speech" because North Korea has no legal protections for Free Speech? Of course it would. It would be in the US, and it would be in North Korea. North Korea is a great example, and it's not hypothetical. But in North Korea it is illegal for anyone to be critical of the military—not just asking certain publishers to be more selective about what they publish. But none of this has anything to do with Cloudflare. Cloudflare is just a business. It's a non-essential, privately owned company that has nothing to do with the government. If someone from 8chan goes into the local Starbucks and starts screaming about killing Hispanics, Starbucks can ask them to leave. That's not a free speech violation. If this was something like ICANN seizing a domain or the FCC refusing to issue a radio license you could at least make the "slippery slope" case with some kind of loose validity. But we aren't even talking about that. No one has to support your speech. Dell doesn't have to sell you computers for your server farm and Cloudflare doesn't have to sell you CDN services. CNN doesn't have to give you airtime, and Amazon doesn't have to publish your book. You can build a horrific media empire that endorses and promotes the most disgusting and hateful forms of speech imaginable, but NO ONE has to support you in doing that. And, in fact, no one SHOULD be forced to. Just look at Alex Jones. No one has arrested him (minus an incident in New York with him literally screaming into someone's face with a megaphone, which was borderline assault) and no one should. But no one has to support him either.