5 ms·

Can you elaborate on this?

dtgriscom 4y ago
Github doesn't have to publish or host anything they don't want to, and they may decide not to for many reasons (business, appearances, phase of the moon, etc).
- encryptluks2 4y ago
  I mean if they don't want to because of someone's race then that is against the law. Same with religion. So start a religion that incorporates these ideals.
  - Dalewyn 4y ago
    IANAL, but I recall a religion needs to have existed before so-and-so date (I don't recall exactly) to qualify as a religious exception. Meaning your Swimming Lasagna Monster religion you created yesterday doesn't qualify.
    - ipaddr 4y ago
      The scientology example tells us the opposite.
- drak0n1c 4y ago
  Unless one of those reasons is persistent government requests/pressure on Microsoft/Github. Then it's a convenient way around first amendment protections.
  - blitzar 4y ago
    Is a subpoena, in full compliance with the law, considered to be persistent government requests.
yellow_lead 4y ago
GitHub doesn't have to host anything it doesn't want, regardless of free speech
- dekhn 4y ago
  he said it would be interesting if github chose to un-host it but then he'd just move it to a university server.
yarg 4y ago
The First Amendment rights of corporations is at play here. > The first may protect the right for Github to host the repo (though even that seems somewhat a stretch) There's a rather murky limit on freedom of speech, I'm really not sure where it stands with regard to instructional content in general - however some such content has been constrained before; usually regarding weapons (or really any content that the government can argue is weapons related). It's murky, and subject to government overreach. > but it certainly doesn't grant or protect any right to publish on Github servers. The first constrains the government, it in no way constrains private entities. In fact (given the corporate personhood), to require that a private entity publish content from a third party would be compelled speech, and a breach of the entity's first amendment rights.
- jayparth 4y ago
  What I took it as was “the first protects Green’s right to republish on GitHub [from government censorship].” Of course the first does not compel GitHub to allow him to do anything on their servers, but it does protect what both parties consented to do from government censorship.
- retcore 4y ago
  > There's a rather murky limit on freedom of speech, I don't believe it's murky at all, but defined deliberately in fuzzy terms in a number of important ways, one of which is the avoidance of precipitation of criminality. Criminality defined as that which is harmful to society. Although it may sound weak, compared to the presumed unfettered principles invoked above, should one or other of a separating couple used Tornado Cash to rinse common property funds, something that isn't drug dealing or terrorism anyhow, nevertheless it's laundering and using a device to commit a crime without which device that crime may not be possible. Federal proceedings against Tornado Cash have given the unlawful enterprise unprecedented profile and it follows that the motivation for anyone who strives for continuance of the same or similar, in light of the reasons for federal action, could be construed as being potential criminal too. Frankly I am stunned in the era that recognizes hate speech, that the automatic right to unfiltered and inconsequential freedom of speech is claimed so crudely, so reflexively and on such narrow and unexplained grounds..
nominusllc 4y ago
If Github consents to storing it on those grounds, they have that right, in my unlicensed opinion.

Github doesn't have to publish or host anything they don't want to, and they may decide not to for many reasons (business, appearances, phase of the moon, etc).

encryptluks2 4y ago
I mean if they don't want to because of someone's race then that is against the law. Same with religion. So start a religion that incorporates these ideals.
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  IANAL, but I recall a religion needs to have existed before so-and-so date (I don't recall exactly) to qualify as a religious exception. Meaning your Swimming Lasagna Monster religion you created yesterday doesn't qualify.
  - ipaddr 4y ago
    The scientology example tells us the opposite.
drak0n1c 4y ago
Unless one of those reasons is persistent government requests/pressure on Microsoft/Github. Then it's a convenient way around first amendment protections.
- blitzar 4y ago
  Is a subpoena, in full compliance with the law, considered to be persistent government requests.

yellow_lead 4y ago

GitHub doesn't have to host anything it doesn't want, regardless of free speech

dekhn 4y ago
he said it would be interesting if github chose to un-host it but then he'd just move it to a university server.

yarg 4y ago

The First Amendment rights of corporations is at play here. > The first may protect the right for Github to host the repo (though even that seems somewhat a stretch) There's a rather murky limit on freedom of speech, I'm really not sure where it stands with regard to instructional content in general - however some such content has been constrained before; usually regarding weapons (or really any content that the government can argue is weapons related). It's murky, and subject to government overreach. > but it certainly doesn't grant or protect any right to publish on Github servers. The first constrains the government, it in no way constrains private entities. In fact (given the corporate personhood), to require that a private entity publish content from a third party would be compelled speech, and a breach of the entity's first amendment rights.

jayparth 4y ago
What I took it as was “the first protects Green’s right to republish on GitHub [from government censorship].” Of course the first does not compel GitHub to allow him to do anything on their servers, but it does protect what both parties consented to do from government censorship.
retcore 4y ago
> There's a rather murky limit on freedom of speech, I don't believe it's murky at all, but defined deliberately in fuzzy terms in a number of important ways, one of which is the avoidance of precipitation of criminality. Criminality defined as that which is harmful to society. Although it may sound weak, compared to the presumed unfettered principles invoked above, should one or other of a separating couple used Tornado Cash to rinse common property funds, something that isn't drug dealing or terrorism anyhow, nevertheless it's laundering and using a device to commit a crime without which device that crime may not be possible. Federal proceedings against Tornado Cash have given the unlawful enterprise unprecedented profile and it follows that the motivation for anyone who strives for continuance of the same or similar, in light of the reasons for federal action, could be construed as being potential criminal too. Frankly I am stunned in the era that recognizes hate speech, that the automatic right to unfiltered and inconsequential freedom of speech is claimed so crudely, so reflexively and on such narrow and unexplained grounds..

nominusllc 4y ago

If Github consents to storing it on those grounds, they have that right, in my unlicensed opinion.