2 ms·

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/equ

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.