Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

sciencemag.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 335 posts

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#101

Post by sthnblllII »

tptacek wrote: post #97
insickness wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Ownership does not always mean absolute dominion. The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it." This from Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946), a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which it ruled that a state trespassing statute could not be…

Everything the court has done since Marsh v Alabama has walked that decision back, and I think you'll have a hard time finding legal experts to back the interpretation that Twitter owns the obligations of a public square. We've had threads about it on HN, but it's also (for obvious reasons) come up recently, and here's Ken White citing a recent SCOTUS decision knocking this idea down: https://twitter.com/Popehat/stat…

Laws can, do and need to change as technology changes the political reality. No one elected twitter. Building a pretty website should not give a private entity the power to control political speech.

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#102

Post by dmitrygr »

Did you enjoy the party?

Everyone cheered Twitter when they started taking down accounts, sure that it would never affect them. Everyone ignored the warnings that it is a very slippery slope.

Well, after a fun party, the bill is due.

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#103

Post by light_hue_1 »

abnry wrote: post #21

I don't support piracy. So I don't support Sci-hub. But I believe that publishers are bilking the public and that publicly funded research should be made freely available. The real way to fix this is to disrupt the reputational incentives academics (and deans supporting this) have to keep publishing in these journals. For some reason, I think this is an unpopular opinion on HN.

As a scientist I can tell you that Sci-hub is critical to the progress of humankind. I can't even describe how many times we rely on it and how much poorer the world would be without it.

Maybe you should reconsider your position on "piracy" if it would lead to a significant slowdown in solving the serious challenges that face us in the 21st century.

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#104

Post by mc32 »

HarryHirsch wrote: post #11

Twitter has no business inserting itself into a dispute between Elbakyan and Elsevier et al. Few people would have issues if Twitter shut down the Sci-Hub account after they received a valid court order, but a private monopolist cannot be trusted to be the arbiter of what is permitted speech.

Agree.

They’re not violating copyright via Twitter. They should have a voice via Twitter, no matter the accusation.

Do accused murderers [as opposed to convicted] get their Twitter suspended?

This is ridiculous.

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#106

Post by mc32 »

tomjen3 wrote: post #100
HarryHirsch wrote: post #11

Twitter has no business inserting itself into a dispute between Elbakyan and Elsevier et al. Few people would have issues if Twitter shut down the Sci-Hub account after they received a valid court order, but a private monopolist cannot be trusted to be the arbiter of what is permitted speech.

I disagree, they should have purged Elsevier.

I know you’re being cheeky. But honestly no. People and entities should be allowed opinions no matter how we disagree, so long as it’s not outright violent or otherwise violating local laws.

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#107

Post by 29athrowaway »

HarryHirsch wrote: post #11

Twitter has no business inserting itself into a dispute between Elbakyan and Elsevier et al. Few people would have issues if Twitter shut down the Sci-Hub account after they received a valid court order, but a private monopolist cannot be trusted to be the arbiter of what is permitted speech.

Twitter is enforcing DMCA.

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#108

Post by buzzerbetrayed »

29athrowaway wrote: post #107
HarryHirsch wrote: post #11

Twitter has no business inserting itself into a dispute between Elbakyan and Elsevier et al. Few people would have issues if Twitter shut down the Sci-Hub account after they received a valid court order, but a private monopolist cannot be trusted to be the arbiter of what is permitted speech.

Twitter is enforcing DMCA.

No, they aren’t. They’re not violating copyright via Twitter

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#109

Post by mc32 »

insickness wrote: post #96
memer wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's Twitter's own servers and they can choose who can use them or not. Permitted speech on the legal scope does not matter when talking about businesses.

> "Ownership does not always mean absolute dominion. The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it." This from Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946), a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which it ruled that a state trespassing statute could not be…

Isn’t there precedent for people being able to speak in malls as part of freedom of speech in certain state constitutions as a consequence of Pruneyard vs Robbins?

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#110

Post by joshuamorton »

tptacek wrote: post #97
insickness wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Ownership does not always mean absolute dominion. The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it." This from Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946), a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which it ruled that a state trespassing statute could not be…

Everything the court has done since Marsh v Alabama has walked that decision back, and I think you'll have a hard time finding legal experts to back the interpretation that Twitter owns the obligations of a public square. We've had threads about it on HN, but it's also (for obvious reasons) come up recently, and here's Ken White citing a recent SCOTUS decision knocking this idea down: https://twitter.com/Popehat/stat…

There's another thing that I think is often glossed over in discussions of Marsh v. Alabama (I'm not a lawyer though, and Ken is probably smarter than me anyhow).

But that is that Marsh v. Alabama had the company wanting to use a state law to kick people out (and this was repeated with the California case Pruneyard). "The state doesn't need to actively help you kick people exercising their 1A rights in a place you don't want them to" is very, very different from "The state can prevent you from exercising your own autonomy to prevent someone from re-accessing your property".

If the company town put up a fence and a gate, they wouldn't be forced to let anyone in.

Post reply on HN