The far right is losing its ability to speak freely online. Should the left defend it?

[jonathan180iq]

In a civilized society, that "consequence" is debate, even heated debate, but not all out silencing.

No longer being hosted by a certain domain does not mean that they are being silenced. Their free speech is not being infringed upon. They can still print, e-mail, call, write, organize, publish, etc. whatever they want, provided they can find a platform to do so. Their host decided that they were no longer welcome and they were removed. That's a natural consequence of the type of speech that they produced and it's wholly the right of the organization hosting them to make the decision they made.

Like a cake shop...

Doesn't a website open to the public fall under the same?

A cake shop can refuse service to anyone that it chooses to do so, provided that it's not refusing service based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin... And that's the problem with both organizations here. The Daily Stormer & Pious Cake Shop are basically doing the same thing - and they're both wrong.

I'm surprised that we so easily forget the whole point of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia

 

[Polymath257]

Correct! And that is my point. This isn't about wedding cake. That's just what I used as an example. Doesn't a website open to the public fall under the same?

And would a lunch counter refusing to serve blacks fall under the same?

We have decided that certain types of discrimination by public businesses are not allowed. Refusing to host a website based on content is not one of the forbidden types of discrimination.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just playing devils advocate here, but could this fall under the same legality of a Christian bakery being forced to prepare a wedding cake for a gay couple against their religious beliefs? I think they lost their business over that. How is this different?

Generally, discrimination on the basis of religion or sexual orientation is prohibited in ways that discrimination on the basis of disagreement with racist or extreme political viewpoints is not.

Also, providing a cake to a same-sex marriage never means facilitating violence against people. Providing someone with a wedding cake will never mean providing someone with the means to harm you or people you care about.

 

[idav]

I consider my self a right-winger but i would absolutely defend free speech for people on the left if they were getting censored.

Like an anarchist cite inciting violence, for example, may not go down too well, heck even without any violence.

 

[Sanzbir]

Generally, these terms of service have clauses that let the provider terminate the service by refunding any prepayment. They also let the provider modify the terms.

Generally, clauses like that in contracts are ruled by the courts as being invalid and non-enforceable.

We don't let other corporations use such contracts, but internet corporations can, for whatever reason.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It was their business which they had built. And they lost it due to their religious beliefs. That's all I'm saying about this.

If you choose to defy the law because of your religious beliefs, then you might have to pay a price. The Bible admonishes the believer "Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God and those which exist are established by God." and "Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man!"

These people made their choice, as did the county clerk in Kentucky, Kim Davis, who illegally refused to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples, and there was a price to pay for it.

Note how far their religious beliefs actually strayed from their Bibles, which state that homosexuality is a sin, but nowhere says that same sex couples shouldn't marry or that God expects them to disobey the law by refusing such couple service.

I'm told that many same sex couples don't have sexual relationships. The bakers and clerk were not privy to this information. So what is it that justifies their refusal to do their jobs? Even if these couples are having homosexual relations, where does the Bible say that they should be discriminated against rather than prayed for or told God's will?

Of course, all of these people feel persecuted, but they were the ones doing the persecuting in the name of their religion, illegally, in defiance of scripture commanding them to obey local law. Christians that want to discriminate against same sex couples probably should plan their lives as if they live in a society that disapproves of such behavior and limits the extent to which it is legal.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Correct! And that is my point. This isn't about wedding cake. That's just what I used as an example. Doesn't a website open to the public fall under the same?

An important distinction is that it does not hurt the bakers' business to make the cake - in fact, they lost a little income by refusing the business - whereas the server can be hurt by facilitating a hate group. The baker's are being bigots, whereas the host that originally accepted the business of the hate group is obviously not bigoted against them, merely trying to protect his business from what had recently become a third rail issue.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

No longer being hosted by a certain domain does not mean that they are being silenced. Their free speech is not being infringed upon. They can still print, e-mail, call, write, organize, publish, etc. whatever they want, provided they can find a platform to do so. Their host decided that they were no longer welcome and they were removed. That's a natural consequence of the type of speech that they produced and it's wholly the right of the organization hosting them to make the decision they made.

Good point.

As I understand it, the First Amendment is applies to the government, not you or I, meaning that we are free to make any effort to oppose or suppress ideas we don't like as long as we don't break the law.

And what the government is not allowed to do is attempt to squelch the expression of an idea except those selected for non-protection, such as threatening or otherwise endangering the life of the president in a public venue, or shouting, "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

But the government does have the right to prevent citizens from expressing themselves in certain ways, such as an atheist commandeering the pulpit of a Church during a Sunday sermon and substituting his ideas for the pastors. He's free to express those ideas in the ways you listed, which means that his freedom of expression is not being denied, but if he decides to trespass, he may face legal consequences.

 

[Quintessence]

Issues like this exist because internet service is not a public utility. It should be a public utility. If internet service was a public utility, things like this - where a private company denies service - probably would not happen.

 

[Stanyon]

The alarming aspect of this is that the Internet has become increasingly corporatized and domain holders can shut down domains on a whim or from pressure from political activists, to silence unpopular points of view. This is weaponizing the Internet, basically. It is worrying if you believe that the Internet should be public and open.

I agree but I would also add that in my view the Internet was weaponized from day one.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Correct! And that is my point. This isn't about wedding cake. That's just what I used as an example. Doesn't a website open to the public fall under the same?

It should, but eletronically things can get tricky as the TOS for so many companies, devices, and programs are very heavily stacked in the company's favor, so much so that even physical devices and software there is a chance that legally you are leasing/paying for the privilege of use and don't actually own it, and modifying them in anyway violates the usage agreement. In the case of Stormfront, I wouldn't be surprised if their former host had a clause about altering, adjusting, and canceling the agreement at anytime without notification or consent. It's crap, but so many often those agreements we joke about reading are no laughing matter.
The challenge though will be getting such Right-winged groups, who often are trying to decrease government presence, to get the government involved to put an end to such terribly one-sided agreements and replace them with mandatory fair and agreeable agreements.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Good point.
As I understand it, the First Amendment is applies to the government, not you or I, meaning that we are free to make any effort to oppose or suppress ideas we don't like as long as we don't break the law.

And what the government is not allowed to do is attempt to squelch the expression of an idea except those selected for non-protection, such as threatening or otherwise endangering the life of the president in a public venue, or shouting, "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

But the government does have the right to prevent citizens from expressing themselves in certain ways, such as an atheist commandeering the pulpit of a Church during a Sunday sermon and substituting his ideas for the pastors. He's free to express those ideas in the ways you listed, which means that his freedom of expression is not being denied, but if he decides to trespass, he may face legal consequences.

Yup.

It's the same as 50 counter protesters drowning out the speech of 10 protesters.
People have the right to express all manner of stupidity that they desire. They are not, however, guaranteed the right to audience or platform.