ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is

Post by raxxorraxor » Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 3:19 PM UTC

t43562 wrote: post #507

cf141q5325 wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any moral judgement that ignores the direct practical implications of that judgement is deeply immoral. You cant have meant well when you could have known better but didnt want to. >So what is "ok" and what is "not ok" - would you censor the NAZI party in the 1930s or do you think that letting theim air their views fully would convince Germans not to accept them? 10s of millions of lives depend on your choice. The ri…

I don't think the Germans now accept your reasoning and your specific story doesn't really provide support for it. Countries have laws againt hate speech and libel because we realise that these are evil forms of "free speech". We have laws about every action that we can do because those actions can harm other people and speech is another action which can harm others.

Post by chonkerz » Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 3:22 PM UTC

ThrowawayTestr wrote: post #570

habinero wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is, however, also legal for private companies to decide stalking is bad and kick them off their systems.

In the state that KF operates in, it actually isn't legal. ISPs like Hurricane are obligated to serve all legal traffic the same. KF's owner has already served complaints to the state authorities.

Post by Dan_Sylveste » Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 3:26 PM UTC

lmm wrote: post #135

pfisch wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When in all of US history were private companies not controlling the public discourse and "censoring free speech"?

We didn't used to let private companies control the public discourse. The mail is government-run and there are mail privacy protections as deep as the constitution. In the age of radio and TV we at least had the equal time rule and some level of public oversight.

Post by Dan_Sylveste » Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 3:30 PM UTC

karaterobot wrote: post #754

mortenjorck wrote: post #8

It's heartening to see the EFF come out sticking to principles on this in a time when other organizations of their stature have not. I hate to say it, but I could easily imagine something like the ACLU opposing the EFF on this.

I don't even mentally file the ACLU as "the good guys" anymore. Rationally, I know they continue to do a lot of good work today, but that bit has been flipped, and it's hard to go back. When you're an organization like that, you kind of have to be absolute in your stance, and write things like "history requires us to look at the bigger picture, and sound the alarm about the risks even when the facts are horrific".

Post by Dan_Sylveste » Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 3:37 PM UTC

jasonlotito wrote: post #737

amiga386 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, the ACLU have lost their way. https://web.archive.org/web/20210608004853/https://www.nytim... > the organization finds itself riven with internal tensions over whether it has stepped away from a founding principle — unwavering devotion to the First Amendment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union... > Beginning in 2017, some individuals claimed the ACLU was reducing its support of unpop…

> Indeed, the ACLU have lost their way. Indeed, they haven't. > The memo listed several factors to consider, including "the extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values." i.e. Consider whether we'd be arguing against our own goals. How anyone reasonable could consider this a bad thing, I don't know. https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-…