That's literally true; private censorship is exactly what the freedom of speech and press in the first amendment protect: that every private party is generally free to choose what speech it will relay.
every private party is generally free to choose what speech it will relay
This is generally true, but not always; in particular, companies with monopolistic power forfeit some of their autonomy. I'm sure that wouldn't apply in this case, but it might kick in if Google banned this website from its search results, for example.
So these guys are claiming their (hateful) message is about their race. Are they justified in claiming their protected class is not being recognized in this business decision by Godaddy, et alia.
Google isn't discriminating on the basis of race. It's not saying "These people cannot host their domain with our service because of their skin color". That would be illegal, but that's not what they're doing, obviously.
> Are they justified in claiming their protected class is not being recognized in this business decision by Godaddy, et alia.
They are certainly free to lay out their evidence that it is race and not advocacy of violence that motivated the actions, either to make that case in the court of public opinion or one of law (race-based discrimination in public accommodation is generally illegal).
From the publicly available evidence, that explanation doesn't seem the most likely one, though.
Public accommodation anti-discrimination laws are a thorny area where they address things which can be viewed as expressive/speech acts for exactly this reason, sure.
But, the appropriateness of such laws and how they interact with First Amendment freedoms is somewhat irrelevant to this case, in the absence of a statute that would be applicable.
Either the principle is important and you support it or you don't. If you actually believe in freedom of speech you don't get to celebrate censorship by corporate entities because the constitution didn't forbid it.
There is nothing wrong per say with your position. This becomes an issue when a corporation that is a delivery medium for information censors based on popular sentiment. If you are a domain register you are selling a resource that is publicly owned and therefor you should not be able to ban things you do not like. If you are a hosting provider of course you do not have to host that content but we need to be careful that the registers are not permitted to censor domains they do not like. The the right to register a domain is a government function we delegated to ICANN there for a domain is covered as "freedom of speech". Can you imagine the Internet if it was around in the 50s & 60s and the domains that would be banned because racism was okay?
These are completely different concepts. Government != buisness. I can't choose to ignore the US government if I live here and don't like what they do. These people do not have to use Google if they do not agree with their decision.
The issue here is that Google holds a monopoly on search, which has an incredible effect on the internet. Given that the gateway to the internet for most people is Google, should freedom of speech protections extend to it?
Considering there are more than one domain provider, your argument about search is irrelevant. Just because Google and GoDaddy kicked them out, doesn't mean there aren't dozens more companies who would take them in.
Sadly, we don't really have much to ensure freedom from tyranny of the corporation. Especially since the owners of the corporations and the government are essentially the same people.
Or even more so, the vast majority of people who don't bother to vote at all. Its less like a representative democracy, and more like a "democracy" that represents our collective failure.
What a terribly un-nuanced and simplistic view of freedom of speech. I do not support the government punishing anyone for the views they espouse. I do, however, support the right of private companies to regulate their private platforms, as long as they don't discriminate against protected classes laid out in law.
This all-or-nothing view has never been true, and that's kind of the point. Freedom of speech requires social dialogue and consequence to have value - the ability of private entities to reject what they don't like is what makes the whole thing work.
Equivocation. "the principle" points at different principles for different people. There are differences in which types of organizations we might wish to forbid from interfering with speech. It is absolutely coherent to believe in a principle which celebrates censorship by corporate entities but not by governmental entities.
As much as this conversation gets played out, I still find it really interesting. On one hand, there is a difference between free speech as a legal term, and the free speech principles that undergird it. You can argue that Google should abide by free speech principles in allowing open discourse, regardless of the legal requirement to do so. On the other hand, a fundamental component of free speech (expression in this case) principles is the right to free association. Google therefore should exercise its own judgement in selecting those with whom they do associate, and resist external demands to associate with someone they would rather not.
I believe that Google should feel free, both legally and socially, to act according to their conscience as a company. However, I believe that their conscience, as a massively powerful part of online communication, should be to remain neutral towards any legal communication that takes place on their platform. I think that's a more effective moral stance than the one they are taking.
I believe that the right of private parties to be free from having speech compelled or repressed by the State is an important principal which means (except where it runs up against other important principals) permitting private censorship is important for the same reason as prohibiting public censorship.
Bingo. The people who are cheering this censorship will be damning it when it happens to them. You either fight for freedom of speech, or you live by the pleasure of the tyrant.
People cheering Google here, were you happy when Occupy Wall Street was run out of a public park, essentially censoring the movement? I certainly wasn't.
Occupy Wall Street isn't a relevant example to bring up because if it were a public park, then it would be referring to government censorship, whereas Google is private, so it's not relevant.
Yes! That's the point of free speech - private entities can accept and reject ideas they like or dislike. The founders knew this, and they omitted any mention of private entities in the first amendment:
The text of the first amendment is: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It says nothing about private entities regulating private platforms and that's on purpose - free speech means nothing without the private means to accept or reject it.
I feel that most of this confusion stems from people who live in different countries conflating their free speech laws with our own. In the United States, the government cannot regulate speech on the basis of its content, and this has always been the case. In the United States, private entities are free to regulate speech on private platforms, and this has also been the case since day 1 of the republic. This is nothing new for us Americans, and nothing particularly scary!
There is no confusion. I understand the constitution only protects free speech from itself, but that doesn't mean we should welcome when private entities censor.
In other words, because it isn't constitutionally protected doesn't mean I have to like it, and I certainly won't give them kudos for it. I'm not arguing the legality of it, you are and I'm not sure why. I suspect it's because you support this type of censorship.
Again, a straw man. I never said the government should force it. Do you support google's censorship? I mean what if they decided a liberal website was over the top and blocked their registration. Or an independent site critical of both Democrats and Republicans because they propose the entire system is corrupt? It works both (all three) ways.
You're making a slippery slope argument that I'm not finding at all convincing. The only domain name transfer that Google has refused, to my knowledge anyway, is this one. The Daily Stormer. A bunch of racist Nazis. It's a long leap from there to imagine Google refusing domain name registrations for mainstream political parties that fully half of the country subscribes to. I don't see it happening.
Oh my goodness, loss of liberty is a death from a thousand cuts. Do you think the PATRIOT act will ever be fully expired or repealed? No way. Do you think the NSA will ever be barred from collecting data on US citizens? Hell no. Those are liberties we've lost forever, and not just us, but our children and our children's children, in the last 20 years, because of complacency. Think of all the rights because of the drug war that will never end. We will lose plenty of others. It's a constant assault.
Can you even think of one government protected right we've gained in the last 20 years? Don't say pot, because we lost that right in the 1900s. As a citizen it is your duty to be diligent to protect your freedoms, for your self and future generations. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and we're well down it.
You are again derailing the conversation by bringing up government actions, which are explicitly different than companies having the freedom to choose who they wish to do business with. Stick to the topic at hand! Companies cannot be forced to offer domain name registration services to Nazis if they do not want to. Forcing them to is a greater violation of liberty than allowing them the choice not to associate with Nazis.
No one said force but you. I am complaining about a problem and you are offering a solution, associating it with me, then criticizing it. Believe it or not, there is more than one way to solve a problem.
My solution was to have a public option registrar.
An organization becomes a government the moment it starts governing. There's a difference between an organization promoting its interests and an organization using its power to control and regulate. There's a difference between corporations like Godaddy and corporations like ICANN.
As long as companies are making individual decisions and ICANN isn't involved, I think it's good that companies are making a moral stand. But when we start creating blacklists we become no better than the Nazis. It's a line we're getting dangerously close to and we don't want to cross it. I see no problem with a company like Google banning neo-Nazi websites. I see a huge problem if all the registrars conspire to create a blacklist or if ICANN starts censoring content.
This a garbage, slipper-slope argument. It is clear and indubitable that the people in question host hate speech. There's nothing controversial about it.
Yes they host hate speech. What is your point. They have the right to speak even if their views are poison and stupid. That is the point. This speech would have been perfectly fine in the 50s & 60s. The sites that would get banned by your logic would be the anti-rascism ones as that did not follow the popular sentiment. All speech should be protected even if it is abhorrent and stupid.
In the United States, you only have a right to free speech in the public space - the government cannot punish you for it. But not in the private space, with a few clear legal exceptions. I think a source of confusion in this thread is a lack of understanding over this public-private division, which has existed for hundreds of years now. It's nothing new, and it's certainly not illegal.
No, not really. Who the hell thinks that "all speech should be protected"? You're oversimplifying a complex issue into a soundbyte that is not and has never been real. Nobody defends hate speech.
No I am not. It is really that simple. People can say and think whatever stupid thing they want. As soon as you put limits on what people can say it becomes a slippery slope (Hey let's ban talking about Abortion - you do not think that would happen given enough control to that camp?). The only way to be safe it just to allow people to say what they want (with in the limits of "fire in a theater" or liable) and deal with it. You do not have to like it. Feel free to argue and protest against it. That is your right because what comes out of your mouth is just a protected as something that comes out of the dumbass alt-right people. I am not afraid of what they say. I challenge the facts and truth of it but it is their right to be stupid. Only education and good people standing up for what is just and correct removes the sources of hate speech. Banning it is just something that allows people to feel good without solving the source of the issue in the first place.
Really? Because Germans have banned Nazi speech and they're doing pretty damn well.
It's easy for you to say that you're not afraid. I bet you're not a persecuted minority. The torches aren't going to be coming down on you buddy.
And like I said, we ban speech all the time. We have NDAs, we have court orders, we ban fighting words and so on. The idea that the slippery slope is just not happening seems alien to you.
My lastname is Persian so...airports are fun. My mother marched in the south in the 60s for civil rights.
It there is still a huge number of Neo-Nazi's in Germany so banning speech has worked?
Banning speech because you think the torches are coming for you is just a feel good measure. Only education and good people standing up to do the right thing can fix this. Let's get this right - I cannot stand these alt-right morons. They make my stomach turn. In reality however I just feel sorry for them and wish we as society could fix / education / heal whatever stupidity in their upbringing makes them act / think this way. No child is born racist. It is taught. A witch hunt to ban them just makes their persucution and anger complex worse.
'Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars.... Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.' –Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community, MLK.
Court orders are temporary based on a on going case, etc. NDAs are a voluntary contract. They also legally do not prevent you from speaking in the case of a legal violation.
I am an absolutist on this issue because it is the only safe way.
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out — Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."
- Martin Niemoller
The Website is only doing this for publicity. They knew Google would ban them immediately and they can use that as a cry of oppression to their members and aspiring members and young people who buy into this and are looking for a cause to identify with. And after all this a lot more people know about them than before. Streisand effect in action.
Perhaps, but Google's short sightedness will probably make them (Stormwhatever) stronger. I mean who knew Google liked to sensor unfavorable views? A lot of people do now.
My fear is it will be easier for organizations like this Website to radicalize otherwise moderate people. It isn't hard to sell the argument that "first they (liberal minded people) wanted to take away your second amendment right. Now they want to take your first! We are the protectors of the Constitution!".
Banning them is futile (someone on Earth will host them) and makes them more subversive, taboo, and attractive to certain people.
>"first they (liberal minded people) wanted to take away your second amendment right. Now they want to take your first! We are the protectors of the Constitution!".
I'm sure that is absolutely what is happening, and they kind of have a point. Google leans liberal, they just got a ton of bad press for firing that guy, and they just blocked Stormwhatever from their DNS servers after GoDaddy just did (who I assume is also liberalish).
Like I said, shortsighted. Not to mention when people start thinking of Google as a monopoly, they don't want a bunch of references to a banstick coming up in public discourse.
So the irony of it is that Google blocked their registration to minimize their footprint, yet in doing it, the propaganda they gave the Stormwhatevers will stand to actually increase the footprint.
It's like when we invaded Iraq to fight terrorism (or whatever) and ended up creating one of the strongest terror groups (ISIS) history has seen in a while.
Ya gotta have to face palm. I mean this is nothing new. When you kill the crazy leader, you make him a martyr thus strengthening the group. Worked since at least Christianity.
Part of the reason we served was to allow people we disagree with have the right to freedom of speech no matter how stupid their views are. Banning hate speech (no matter how abhorrent) is a slippery slope.
Private companies are allowed to choose who they want to do business with. To give you an example, pornography is legal, and the government can't jail you for making or distributing it, but it's also within Facebook's rights to decide that they don't want it on their platform.
Freedom of speech has to do with freedom from government censorship and prosecution; you can't force random private entities to help spread your speech.
edit: The cake case was due to state laws, though.
> No federal law requires businesses to serve all customers without regard to their sexual orientation, but 21 states have “public accommodations” laws that prohibit discrimination against gays and lesbians. -
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-gays-religio...
This is a discussion of what is legal and what isn't, no? I don't make the laws so I don't see how my views are relevant here. It's legal to refuse to do business with Nazis. That's what's at issue here.
> Yet the government can force private entities to sell a cake to a homosexual couple?
The government equally could adopt a law prohibiting discrimination based on advocacy of race-based violence in public accommodation as several state governments have for gender preference.
> Yet the government can force private entities to sell a cake to a homosexual couple?
Laws reflect human preferences, which are at some level arbitrary. Apparently, many states think that discrimination against gays is a problem that needs to be addressed, whereas discrimination against violent racists is not.
Discrimination against individuals based on gender, age, sexual orientation, etc are protected classes in many states. You're free to lobby the government to make nazis a protected class if you'd like.
You might want to take a look at the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It's one of the most famous pieces of legislation of the 20th century - you might have heard of it? Go read the bit about "protected classes".
The law will always seem arbitrary to you as long as you are ignorant of it.
The pornography example is also a good one because they experience significantly more issues with web hosting and merchant accounts due to ToS. They seem to understand and accept that.
Yes, absolutely. All the domain name registrars have terms of service. The domain name system is not a public system, it is not run by any government. For example terms of services will often disallow uses related to pornography, gambling, violence, crime, fraud, etc.
They have the right to be a registrar because the government allowed it (here in the US). It seems that if I registered godaddysucks.com and they refused I would have a case as they are blocking political speech on a service they where granted the right to service by the US government and thus the people.
In China the government which controls the registars for their country would of course ban"wedrovetanksovertheprotestors.co.cn". Does not seem we in the USA should allow that sort of restriction here, no?
All free speech has to be allowed. The internet in the US is a public monopoly like power, etc (despite the current FCC chairs view). As a public monopoly the right of free speech for something like a registrar has to be enforced. This does not mean Facebook cannot enforce a terms of service as you do not need to use Facebook. But banning the public resource of domain registration which allows these dumbasses to put up and host their own site violates the idea of free speech as they require a registrar to exist in order to speak. It does not matter if we do not like what they have to say. After all you need not visit the site.
Banning Nazi speech in Germay has not resulted Germany being free of neo-nazis.
Hitler started slow, prohibiting the trade unionist. Seemed like a great idea at the time.... it's a slippery slope.
Education is the only cure here. Restricting speech only leads to more extreme behavior and opens the path for others to restrict what they do not like.
Yes, I agree. We can easily apply the same logic and apply the ban to, say, gangsta rap, as many of lyrics are hate speech. But I'm willing to bet most people would be against this.
Pure anecdote, but I feel like there's been a shift in terms of speech/expression philosophy. At home and in school, so-cal for context, I was taught to practice tolerance. Not because every person or peoples were good in their own way, but because attacking them or their rights would weaken the integrity of my own rights and protections since both of us derived our privileges from the same body of law. I don't know if it's just the times or post-internet connectivity but I see a lot more popular support for censorship and violence these days and it makes me a little uncomfortable.
> Banning hate speech (no matter how abhorrent) is a slippery slope.
We already ban some kinds of speech, and I've never heard anyone complain about it. For instance, you can't stand on a street corner and try to recruit people to join ISIS. You can't threaten to hurt or kill someone. You can't show pornography to minors, or show anyone pornography that contains minors.
These are all very popular restrictions on free speech.
> For instance, you can't stand on a street corner and try to recruit people to join ISIS. You can't threaten to hurt or kill someone. You can't show pornography to minors, or show anyone pornography that contains minors.
> These are all very popular restrictions on free speech.
A person can engage in any of the activities you describe. They will just be dealt with by those elected by the people under law established by the people.
Google, Facebook and many others are deciding what they feel you should see based on their own prejudices, identity politics, agenda-driven deals, control and manipulation of information and/or other factors.
It's a slippery slope indeed with no oversight, no means to defend yourself. A person, a domain... simply gets wiped from existence.
It's like AT&T monitoring phone calls (oh, wait...) and killing your phone service because of something you said in a group chat. Or an ISP monitoring your online activities (oh, wait...) and cutting service because you visited a controversial (but legal) site. Or a building owner tossing you out on the street because your politics don't align with his/hers.
We have laws. We also have agencies whose functions are to deal with those breaking those laws. If a domain is doing something illegal - let the law handle it and not your "well-meaning" Uncle Scrooge and his shotgun.
We also have laws against vigilantes. Are the Googles, Facebooks and others turning into information vigilantes?
> We also have laws against vigilantes. Are the Googles, Facebooks and others turning into information vigilantes?
No, they are the owners of major digital presses that other people would like to use. But they have the freedom to choose what to use them for.
You can say whatever you want; that is protected by free speech. Google can choose not to provide a venue and assistance to you in publicizing those views; that, too, is free speech.
Your freedom of speech does not entitle you to commandeer the resources of unwilling third parties to deliver your speech. If you want collaborators, you need to convince them.
While I respect Google's rights to host whatever it wants as a private business, I can't help but feel these actions merely serve to prove certain groups right and embolden, or entrench, divisions even further.
Most folks would still vehemently object if this was done on the basis of political party or similar, and would not seriously consider "but you wre fine when they had issues with white supremisists and Nazis!" to be a credible argument. The slippery slope concern does not seem like it would apply much here.
I really don't like this. I don't support nazi's and racists but I do support the free expression of speech. The mob mentality is pushing Google and GoDaddy towards censorship. Where will it end? Why don't they revoke the domain of 4Chan? What's next, Wikileaks? Unless the website is breaking the law I say leave them alone.
Where's the EFF now? Unless it is breaking the law, censorship of any kind is wrong in my book. As distasteful and atrocious as they are, I don't care if you're nazi's or nambla, free expression on the internet, of all places, should be guaranteed. I hope they find a domain that stands up to the mob.
97 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 170 ms ] threadThis is generally true, but not always; in particular, companies with monopolistic power forfeit some of their autonomy. I'm sure that wouldn't apply in this case, but it might kick in if Google banned this website from its search results, for example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class
They are certainly free to lay out their evidence that it is race and not advocacy of violence that motivated the actions, either to make that case in the court of public opinion or one of law (race-based discrimination in public accommodation is generally illegal).
From the publicly available evidence, that explanation doesn't seem the most likely one, though.
But, the appropriateness of such laws and how they interact with First Amendment freedoms is somewhat irrelevant to this case, in the absence of a statute that would be applicable.
No it does not, the government is not the entity they are dealing with.
Either the principle is important and you support it or you don't. If you actually believe in freedom of speech you don't get to celebrate censorship by corporate entities because the constitution didn't forbid it.
This all-or-nothing view has never been true, and that's kind of the point. Freedom of speech requires social dialogue and consequence to have value - the ability of private entities to reject what they don't like is what makes the whole thing work.
I believe that Google should feel free, both legally and socially, to act according to their conscience as a company. However, I believe that their conscience, as a massively powerful part of online communication, should be to remain neutral towards any legal communication that takes place on their platform. I think that's a more effective moral stance than the one they are taking.
People cheering Google here, were you happy when Occupy Wall Street was run out of a public park, essentially censoring the movement? I certainly wasn't.
However, Zucotti Park is private, not public.
Do we want to support a world where corporations can freely censor ideas they don't like? Is that a good world to live in?
The text of the first amendment is: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It says nothing about private entities regulating private platforms and that's on purpose - free speech means nothing without the private means to accept or reject it.
I feel that most of this confusion stems from people who live in different countries conflating their free speech laws with our own. In the United States, the government cannot regulate speech on the basis of its content, and this has always been the case. In the United States, private entities are free to regulate speech on private platforms, and this has also been the case since day 1 of the republic. This is nothing new for us Americans, and nothing particularly scary!
In other words, because it isn't constitutionally protected doesn't mean I have to like it, and I certainly won't give them kudos for it. I'm not arguing the legality of it, you are and I'm not sure why. I suspect it's because you support this type of censorship.
Can you even think of one government protected right we've gained in the last 20 years? Don't say pot, because we lost that right in the 1900s. As a citizen it is your duty to be diligent to protect your freedoms, for your self and future generations. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and we're well down it.
My solution was to have a public option registrar.
As long as companies are making individual decisions and ICANN isn't involved, I think it's good that companies are making a moral stand. But when we start creating blacklists we become no better than the Nazis. It's a line we're getting dangerously close to and we don't want to cross it. I see no problem with a company like Google banning neo-Nazi websites. I see a huge problem if all the registrars conspire to create a blacklist or if ICANN starts censoring content.
This is why namecoin and .bit domains are so great, it's basically registering your domain on the blockchain so it can't be censored.
It's easy for you to say that you're not afraid. I bet you're not a persecuted minority. The torches aren't going to be coming down on you buddy.
And like I said, we ban speech all the time. We have NDAs, we have court orders, we ban fighting words and so on. The idea that the slippery slope is just not happening seems alien to you.
It there is still a huge number of Neo-Nazi's in Germany so banning speech has worked?
Banning speech because you think the torches are coming for you is just a feel good measure. Only education and good people standing up to do the right thing can fix this. Let's get this right - I cannot stand these alt-right morons. They make my stomach turn. In reality however I just feel sorry for them and wish we as society could fix / education / heal whatever stupidity in their upbringing makes them act / think this way. No child is born racist. It is taught. A witch hunt to ban them just makes their persucution and anger complex worse.
'Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars.... Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.' –Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community, MLK.
Court orders are temporary based on a on going case, etc. NDAs are a voluntary contract. They also legally do not prevent you from speaking in the case of a legal violation.
I am an absolutist on this issue because it is the only safe way.
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out — Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me." - Martin Niemoller
He spent 7 years in a Nazi concentration camp.
Banning them is futile (someone on Earth will host them) and makes them more subversive, taboo, and attractive to certain people.
I'm sure that is absolutely what is happening, and they kind of have a point. Google leans liberal, they just got a ton of bad press for firing that guy, and they just blocked Stormwhatever from their DNS servers after GoDaddy just did (who I assume is also liberalish).
Like I said, shortsighted. Not to mention when people start thinking of Google as a monopoly, they don't want a bunch of references to a banstick coming up in public discourse.
If anyone buys into that bullshit it's on them, not Google or Godaddy.
It's like when we invaded Iraq to fight terrorism (or whatever) and ended up creating one of the strongest terror groups (ISIS) history has seen in a while.
Ya gotta have to face palm. I mean this is nothing new. When you kill the crazy leader, you make him a martyr thus strengthening the group. Worked since at least Christianity.
Maybe Google should stay out of politics.
Freedom of speech has to do with freedom from government censorship and prosecution; you can't force random private entities to help spread your speech.
edit: The cake case was due to state laws, though.
> No federal law requires businesses to serve all customers without regard to their sexual orientation, but 21 states have “public accommodations” laws that prohibit discrimination against gays and lesbians. - http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-gays-religio...
The government equally could adopt a law prohibiting discrimination based on advocacy of race-based violence in public accommodation as several state governments have for gender preference.
> Yet the government can force private entities to sell a cake to a homosexual couple?
Laws reflect human preferences, which are at some level arbitrary. Apparently, many states think that discrimination against gays is a problem that needs to be addressed, whereas discrimination against violent racists is not.
The law will always seem arbitrary to you as long as you are ignorant of it.
If I register "godaddysucks.com" with Go Daddy can they say sorry you cannot register that?
In China the government which controls the registars for their country would of course ban"wedrovetanksovertheprotestors.co.cn". Does not seem we in the USA should allow that sort of restriction here, no?
All free speech has to be allowed. The internet in the US is a public monopoly like power, etc (despite the current FCC chairs view). As a public monopoly the right of free speech for something like a registrar has to be enforced. This does not mean Facebook cannot enforce a terms of service as you do not need to use Facebook. But banning the public resource of domain registration which allows these dumbasses to put up and host their own site violates the idea of free speech as they require a registrar to exist in order to speak. It does not matter if we do not like what they have to say. After all you need not visit the site.
Banning Nazi speech in Germay has not resulted Germany being free of neo-nazis.
Hitler started slow, prohibiting the trade unionist. Seemed like a great idea at the time.... it's a slippery slope.
Education is the only cure here. Restricting speech only leads to more extreme behavior and opens the path for others to restrict what they do not like.
We already ban some kinds of speech, and I've never heard anyone complain about it. For instance, you can't stand on a street corner and try to recruit people to join ISIS. You can't threaten to hurt or kill someone. You can't show pornography to minors, or show anyone pornography that contains minors.
These are all very popular restrictions on free speech.
> These are all very popular restrictions on free speech.
A person can engage in any of the activities you describe. They will just be dealt with by those elected by the people under law established by the people.
Google, Facebook and many others are deciding what they feel you should see based on their own prejudices, identity politics, agenda-driven deals, control and manipulation of information and/or other factors.
It's a slippery slope indeed with no oversight, no means to defend yourself. A person, a domain... simply gets wiped from existence.
It's like AT&T monitoring phone calls (oh, wait...) and killing your phone service because of something you said in a group chat. Or an ISP monitoring your online activities (oh, wait...) and cutting service because you visited a controversial (but legal) site. Or a building owner tossing you out on the street because your politics don't align with his/hers.
We have laws. We also have agencies whose functions are to deal with those breaking those laws. If a domain is doing something illegal - let the law handle it and not your "well-meaning" Uncle Scrooge and his shotgun.
We also have laws against vigilantes. Are the Googles, Facebooks and others turning into information vigilantes?
No, they are the owners of major digital presses that other people would like to use. But they have the freedom to choose what to use them for.
You can say whatever you want; that is protected by free speech. Google can choose not to provide a venue and assistance to you in publicizing those views; that, too, is free speech.
Your freedom of speech does not entitle you to commandeer the resources of unwilling third parties to deliver your speech. If you want collaborators, you need to convince them.
While I respect Google's rights to host whatever it wants as a private business, I can't help but feel these actions merely serve to prove certain groups right and embolden, or entrench, divisions even further.