11–18 of 18 posts
Freedom of speech does not give the freedom to violate terms of service. The first paragraph of the complaint states that the site was not compliant and apparently GoDaddy agreed.
Sure, this argument may be valid here. At what point do we explicitly allow a website's ToS to supersede the Constitution though? Denial of rights is a single-edged sword easily flipped.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They should go find a web host that is supportive of their message. Freedom of speech does not mean every platform has to give you a soap box, quite the opposite. All in all its got nothing to do with freedom of speech.
It has everything to do with the freedom of speech, it's the opposite of it, it's called self-censorship.
That seems like a pretty convoluted way to say “I want to force this company to continue hosting this site despite their objections”.
Freedom of speech does not give the freedom to violate terms of service. The first paragraph of the complaint states that the site was not compliant and apparently GoDaddy agreed.
A: hosting company (GoDaddy today) B: anyone (Spencer today) C: bakery D: gay couple
I think a Twitter equivalent of this provocative argument is: now do this for restaurants refusing to serve certain people because of the color of their skin.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, this argument may be valid here. At what point do we explicitly allow a website's ToS to supersede the Constitution though? Denial of rights is a single-edged sword easily flipped.
This is a nonsensical argument- the first amendment doesn’t apply to private corporations, unless your argument is that any random internet company is literally the United States government.
Some thoughts: 1: The WHOIS entry ( https://whois.icann.org/en/lookup?name=altright.com ) seems strange to me: >This domain name has been suspended due to invalid Whois information. Is this a normal WHOIS message for sites that get shut down for ToS violations of the sort being described in the Twitter link? Does anyone know if the WHOIS data for the site was actually invalid? Regardless, that rubs me the wrong way a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a nonsensical argument- the first amendment doesn’t apply to private corporations, unless your argument is that any random internet company is literally the United States government.
Can you provide something to support your claim? Why would a private corporation not be subject to Constitutional law?
Shutting down other people's websites is the complete opposite of freedom of speech. When their free speech is abridged on their own websites, not just shadow-banned in the major social networks, people may end up deciding that their only option left is to resort to force against those they perceive as the abridgers. This will not end well.
They should go find a web host that is supportive of their message. Freedom of speech does not mean every platform has to give you a soap box, quite the opposite. All in all its got nothing to do with freedom of speech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a nonsensical argument- the first amendment doesn’t apply to private corporations, unless your argument is that any random internet company is literally the United States government.
Can you provide something to support your claim? Why would a private corporation not be subject to Constitutional law?