Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's two issues here: a) should online speech be policed b) if so, who should do it? We don't let phone companies police the content of phone calls, and we don't let delivery services police the content of letters/packages, so why would we let ISPs police the content of network packets? Exceptions exist: you can't send most live animals by mail, packages are subject to inspection at customs borders, etc. But any s…
>shouldn't the process be that a court of competent jurisdiction should be able to issue an order the same people who decry this will also decry the government taking charge of internet moderation at the ISP level, probably even louder. This entire discussion is bizarre and academic. The site in question has engaged in doxxing and other activities that has led to real world harm, including suicides, and content on th…
Probably, yes. Which is why I mentioned the first part of the issue. Otoh, when the government does a takedown with court orders, there's always people yelling about it, but it's not as loud as when the government does a takedown without at least the appearance of due process or when a business does it without any due process.
> content on there is already probably illegal.
If the issue is illegal content, there should be indictments and court orders. Or at least, search warrants and seized equipment.
> If I run a business, and I know a customer is doing something like that, I have an ethical obligation to not facilitate it.
Depends on the circumstances of the business. IMHO, common carriers and businesses that are an awful lot like common carriers have an ethical standard to deliver all messages and parcels that are not unduly burdensome to the delivery of other messages and parcels.
This standard allows for blocking network abuse, probably spam, ddos, explosive packages, packages that emit noxious fumes or odors, etc. But not delivering letters because of their content isn't ethical for a letter delivery service, in my mind.