3 ms·

Free speech is a right issued by governments to the people. It is not a valid concept between two private parties. https://money.cnn.com/2017/08/08/technology

Free speech is a right issued by governments to the people. It is not a valid concept between two private parties. https://money.cnn.com/2017/08/08/technology/google-workplace-free-speech/index.html https://money.cnn.com/2017/08/08/technology/google-workplace...

boomlinde 6y ago
Yes, but the argument GP responded to was that "ICANN enforces trademark rights on domains" and that "If the trademark already existed when you bought the domain, and especially if it's widely used and ambiguous, you're gonna lose that domain if the company comes after you." He argues that the practice has its basis in trademark laws. If it is so, nominative use of a trademark to e.g. criticize a product is considered fair use and shouldn't be ruled out by ICANN on that basis. It either wouldn't be, or ICANN have some other basis than trademark law for their rulings. So GP's point raises an interesting question. If you had registered e.g. "google.sucks" or something similar in which the FQDN arguably forms a valid nominative use in itself in good faith to use that domain to criticize Google's business decisions and products, does ICANN have some other policy outside respecting trademark law that would compel them to take the name back and give it to Google? The answer to that question isn't "Free speech is a right issued by governments to the people". That's a pointless non sequitur at best, and I'm frankly tired of hearing it used in defense of huge monopolies that are well deserved of scrutiny in the interest of defending freedom of expression.
- kevindong 6y ago
  I agree in that perhaps entities with a public platform (in this case, literally the internet domain) should be compelled to provide reasonably equal access/equal speech rights to everybody. However, the law is not in that rationale's favor. US courts have repeatedly rejected the argument that private companies are state actors subject to the 1st Amendment [0]. The reality is that the internet is governed almost entirely by private companies. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45650 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45650
  - boomlinde 6y ago
    > I agree in that perhaps entities with a public platform (in this case, literally the internet domain) should be compelled to provide reasonably equal access/equal speech rights to everybody. Agree with who? I said that I'm tired of seeing the defense, especially when it's in response to a concrete question that it doesn't answer. You apparently disagree with that entirely. I'm not tired of the defense because I don't understand it, I'm tired of it because I do understand it and don't need constant reminders of it to derail legitimate discussions of how ICANN deals with possibly trademark infringing uses of their services. I don't know what makes you believe that I don't understand that and keep posting links irrelevant to how ICANN deals with these cases, which again is the question being asked. I'm frankly not sure how I didn't make that clear in my last reply.

boomlinde 6y ago

Yes, but the argument GP responded to was that "ICANN enforces trademark rights on domains" and that "If the trademark already existed when you bought the domain, and especially if it's widely used and ambiguous, you're gonna lose that domain if the company comes after you." He argues that the practice has its basis in trademark laws. If it is so, nominative use of a trademark to e.g. criticize a product is considered fair use and shouldn't be ruled out by ICANN on that basis. It either wouldn't be, or ICANN have some other basis than trademark law for their rulings. So GP's point raises an interesting question. If you had registered e.g. "google.sucks" or something similar in which the FQDN arguably forms a valid nominative use in itself in good faith to use that domain to criticize Google's business decisions and products, does ICANN have some other policy outside respecting trademark law that would compel them to take the name back and give it to Google? The answer to that question isn't "Free speech is a right issued by governments to the people". That's a pointless non sequitur at best, and I'm frankly tired of hearing it used in defense of huge monopolies that are well deserved of scrutiny in the interest of defending freedom of expression.

kevindong 6y ago
I agree in that perhaps entities with a public platform (in this case, literally the internet domain) should be compelled to provide reasonably equal access/equal speech rights to everybody. However, the law is not in that rationale's favor. US courts have repeatedly rejected the argument that private companies are state actors subject to the 1st Amendment [0]. The reality is that the internet is governed almost entirely by private companies. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45650 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45650
- boomlinde 6y ago
  > I agree in that perhaps entities with a public platform (in this case, literally the internet domain) should be compelled to provide reasonably equal access/equal speech rights to everybody. Agree with who? I said that I'm tired of seeing the defense, especially when it's in response to a concrete question that it doesn't answer. You apparently disagree with that entirely. I'm not tired of the defense because I don't understand it, I'm tired of it because I do understand it and don't need constant reminders of it to derail legitimate discussions of how ICANN deals with possibly trademark infringing uses of their services. I don't know what makes you believe that I don't understand that and keep posting links irrelevant to how ICANN deals with these cases, which again is the question being asked. I'm frankly not sure how I didn't make that clear in my last reply.