EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain • Hacker News Board

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#161

Post by pnathan » Wed, Sep 20, 2017, 5:02 AM UTC

notyourday wrote: post #144

pnathan wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a distinction between the government repressing speech and private businesses refusing to give the speech-maker a platform. Further, certain kinds of speech have never been considered protected: "fighting words", certain classes of harassment, fomenting seditious, the famous "fire!" in a crowded theater. Note, too, it's easy to draw a line around advocating for racial supremacy and genocide without stepping o…

> There's a distinction between the government repressing speech and private businesses refusing to give the speech-maker a platform. So you do not support net neutrality, correct?

Not in the usual statement, no. I believe there's a compromise suitable for both technical reality (video makes huge demands on bandwidth, and bandwidth is finite) and neutral communication. Appropriate regulation, suitably delivered in a balance of philosophical care and technical care should solve the bulk of today's problems in this specific arena.

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#162

Post by pnathan » Wed, Sep 20, 2017, 5:06 AM UTC

bmelton wrote: post #136

pnathan wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a distinction between the government repressing speech and private businesses refusing to give the speech-maker a platform. Further, certain kinds of speech have never been considered protected: "fighting words", certain classes of harassment, fomenting seditious, the famous "fire!" in a crowded theater. Note, too, it's easy to draw a line around advocating for racial supremacy and genocide without stepping o…

I think I expressly acknowledge that there's a difference, and I'm not looking for government intercession. > Further, certain kinds of speech have never been considered protected: "fighting words", certain classes of harassment, fomenting seditious, the famous "fire!" in a crowded theater You should really read this: https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/11/hello-youve-been-referred... and to a lesser extent, this: https:…

Popehat tends to be a highly libertarian site. I would prefer not to be instructed by a highly libertarian site. It usually contains presuppositions that render it of limited use in thinking about the matter.

If you, however, have a link to a paper or op-ed put out by a reputable constitutional scholar in a reputable publication, e.g., Harvard Law Review, I would be more than happy to read such a thing.

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#163

Post by pnathan » Wed, Sep 20, 2017, 5:11 AM UTC

KGIII wrote: post #88

pnathan wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a distinction between the government repressing speech and private businesses refusing to give the speech-maker a platform. Further, certain kinds of speech have never been considered protected: "fighting words", certain classes of harassment, fomenting seditious, the famous "fire!" in a crowded theater. Note, too, it's easy to draw a line around advocating for racial supremacy and genocide without stepping o…

Would you agree, then, that Internet access is now a basic human right? If so, would you also agree that said access should include some platform where one is entitled to ownership and thus the freedom of expression - within the bounds of the law? I really dislike Nazis, but I love the liberty of free speech more. It's hard to stand up for them, but it's not 'correct' speech that needs protection. And no, no I don't…

> Would you agree, then, that Internet access is now a basic human right?

I would neither disagree nor agree. Different theories of what a right is exist, and I don't believe it's a settled question enough to even claim that a $newer_thing is a right.

> If I don't stand up for the freedom of expression for the lowliest of views, then I didn't stand for it at all.

I understand this viewpoint. This is the "free speech maximalist" position. I disagree with it. I think there are bounds "beyond the usual pale" where no private institution should be asked to or forced to host it.

It may be that the proper solution is for the US government, as the duly appointed host of the Public Space by long-standing tradition, to create a Public Forum for such things.