3 ms·

Companies can follow their terms of service, but under some circumstances they must act in good faith. If Parler can show that Amazon deliberately applied its

Companies can follow their terms of service, but under some circumstances they must act in good faith. If Parler can show that Amazon deliberately applied its terms of service in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner, then arguably it could build a case for tortious interference in the business relationship between Parler and its advertisers.

awb 6y ago
This seems to be the only possible argument, that Parler is being unfairly singled out and that other platforms have hosted similarly violent content without repercussion. The free speech / censorship argument doesn't seem to fly. The Lin Wood post on Parler (https://twitter.com/slpng_giants/status/1347190280492089344 https://twitter.com/slpng_giants/status/1347190280492089344) and dozens of other posts with screenshots on that thread are clearly targeted threats of political violence and have never constituted free speech: > common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech Sedition, incitement and public security all seem to apply here to the content Parler was hoping to keep publicly accessible. But as far as other platforms go, like Twitter, they made Kathy Griffen delete her direct threats against Trump: https://www.waynedupree.com/2020/05/kathy-griffin-twitter-punished-trump/ https://www.waynedupree.com/2020/05/kathy-griffin-twitter-pu... So, I'm not sure they have enough examples of other platforms allowing this level of violent content to remain public for long.
- lenkite 6y ago
  Kathy Griffen reposted her "Trump head" photo again two days ago. So much for her "sincere apology". No bans for her. https://twitter.com/kathygriffin/status/1348355262155878404 https://twitter.com/kathygriffin/status/1348355262155878404

awb 6y ago

This seems to be the only possible argument, that Parler is being unfairly singled out and that other platforms have hosted similarly violent content without repercussion. The free speech / censorship argument doesn't seem to fly. The Lin Wood post on Parler (https://twitter.com/slpng_giants/status/1347190280492089344 https://twitter.com/slpng_giants/status/1347190280492089344) and dozens of other posts with screenshots on that thread are clearly targeted threats of political violence and have never constituted free speech: > common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech Sedition, incitement and public security all seem to apply here to the content Parler was hoping to keep publicly accessible. But as far as other platforms go, like Twitter, they made Kathy Griffen delete her direct threats against Trump: https://www.waynedupree.com/2020/05/kathy-griffin-twitter-punished-trump/ https://www.waynedupree.com/2020/05/kathy-griffin-twitter-pu... So, I'm not sure they have enough examples of other platforms allowing this level of violent content to remain public for long.

lenkite 6y ago
Kathy Griffen reposted her "Trump head" photo again two days ago. So much for her "sincere apology". No bans for her. https://twitter.com/kathygriffin/status/1348355262155878404 https://twitter.com/kathygriffin/status/1348355262155878404