6 ms·
I'm the first to say that private organizations are not required to host or entertain someone else's hate speech, but that doesn't mean that government organiza
by bduerst 11y ago
I'm the first to say that private organizations are not required to host or entertain someone else's hate speech, but that doesn't mean that government organizations should be censoring it.
That's the key difference here. And the fact that the host didn't give them a heads up about the service cancellation.
- markbnj 11y agoAgreed, and I should make it clear that I don't believe a private hosting company should have to serve any client they would rather not serve. Personally, if I were going into the hosting business I would set a policy up front that we're not in the business of moderating content, just because I think taking responsibility for it would be a nightmare. But I'm not in the hosting business and they should be able to do as they wish. Having done this, though, they will be obligated to continue policing the content on their system, or run the risk of being accused of bias.
- zajd 11y agoI'm not saying they should censor it, they should make it illegal to begin with. Personally, I'd rather live in a society where driving down the road screaming "die you fucking niggers" at black people is illegal, not just frowned upon.
- bduerst 11y agoThreats of violence against individuals are considered outside the scope of the first amendment by the supreme court.
- markbnj 11y agoWhat about "Die, you people with red hair!" Can I drive down the road shouting that? Or will we need a government commission to study from time to time which groups it should be illegal to threaten? Maybe all threats should be illegal? Of course, it's often difficult to discern intent from speech, and some things that sound threatening might not actually be threats. Could get tricky.