4 ms·
I think the discussion shouldn't be about what should be censorship but rather who decides it. So if you put, lets say illegal pornography, on your page, then t
by MichaelRazum 6y ago
I think the discussion shouldn't be about what should be censorship but rather who decides it. So if you put, lets say illegal pornography, on your page, then there is a law that forbids it. Especially in a good system the person who posted it gets prosecuted. On the other hand if companies act like judge and low, it can lead to bad things I think.
- jeromegv 6y agoInciting violence and overthrowing a government is already as illegal as child pornography is. Would you rather have all child pornography kept online up until a judge has declared that person guilty?
- ng12 6y ago> Inciting violence and overthrowing a government is already as illegal as child pornography is Doing it is illegal, advocating for it is explicitly legal. Most of this discussion is about the latter.
- NationalPark 6y agoNo, that's not right. See Brandenburg v. Ohio - incitement is explicitly not legal, per the Supreme Court. The classic qualifying line is "imminent lawless action".
- ng12 6y agoThe Supreme Court found that Brandenburg's 1A rights were violated. The "imminent lawless action" doctrine was protecting his ability to advocate for violence.
- ogre_codes 6y agoAmazon has terms of service. As does Apple and Google. Parler has lawyers who can read this kind of thing. Parler violated those terms of service. Pretty much across the board. In the case of Amazon, they had 7 weeks of advance notification. This isn't about censorship. It's not about "Free Speech", it's about a company breeching contract and suffering the consequences for it.