It's an easy slippery slope towards silencing other views down the road.
Slippery slope argument doesn't hold much weight with me. It has been used again and again to block legitimate social progress. Everything is a slippery slope to somewhere, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying to make our society better. We can just wear better shoes.
should pull the plug on antifa, blm, and bamn sites for the same behavior
I dare to take the bold stance that websites advocating specific people be run over by cars should be refused hosting services, whether they be nazis, communists, BLM supporters or Taylor Swift fans. Lol that wasn't hard. Did you expect I would back down for some reason?
Also according to the database line of duty deaths are actually down 5% this year and gun related deaths down 22%. Either come at me with some more made up shit or finally take a second to sit down and realize that your knee-jerk assumptions without any evidence make you, by the dictionary definition, prejudiced.
Jesus christ ACs... did you even follow the link to the database? The majority of those were traffic accidents and heart attacks. Fucking BLM secretly clogging police offiers' arteries, I fucking knew it.
Legally similar though. Both illegal "speech." And it is not that it is politically unpopular, there are a thousand sites that have that stuff, it is that they were praising the guy that ran over those people and encouraging others to do similar things, i.e. inciting violence.
Yes you are right. From the updated statements the reason given by GoDaddy and Google was actually that they were praising the guy that ran her over and encouraging more people to do similar things, i.e. inciting violence.
Are you not watching the news? There is more political involvement now than in a long time, but it seem like they spending all their energy hating black people for some reason.
they need to start asking "What do you intend to use this domain for?"
Nope. They just give you the benefit of the doubt until you fuck up publicly enough that Google finds out about it. This is now, and has been for a very long time, how the internet works. It is the same reason Google can take down domains that host C&C servers for botnets.
This whole idea makes no sense. The internet is not a town square, it is a million private clubs for all kinds of different groups of people. You think you would be able to freely post on the Daily Stormer to rebut their hate speech? Hell no. The internet is actually anti-open-communication because people just go to the communities that they already agree with. Your town square ideal is more dead now than it has ever been and the internet is not bringing it back.
Again, it doesn't matter what you think. This has been ruled on by the courts. Google has already used this power, for instance, to take down botnet C&C domains. The question is only whether the domain falls into something that is covered by the law, and it pretty clearly does. What they did wrong was specifically target an individual with their hate speech, which is also defamation and not legally protected.
Nope. It has been ruled under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act that ISPs and hosting providers can act to remove harmful or objectionable material but are under no strict obligation to do so. This happens all the time when Google takes down sites that host malware, but they are not held liable for not taking down other sites (or not taking them down fast enough) that end up causing widespread damages.
Slashdot Mirror
If they had a website that was supporting someone that killed a police officer and advocating more people to do it then yes, it should be taken down.
Are you saying that you can be a non-hateful nazi? Because I'm talking specifically about nazis.
It's an easy slippery slope towards silencing other views down the road.
Slippery slope argument doesn't hold much weight with me. It has been used again and again to block legitimate social progress. Everything is a slippery slope to somewhere, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying to make our society better. We can just wear better shoes.
They don't have to. It is up to the web site owners to sue them if they think they were wronged. That is how our legal system works.
Cool made up numbers bro. Not even going to touch the fact that BLM does not automatically equal hate speech.
should pull the plug on antifa, blm, and bamn sites for the same behavior
I dare to take the bold stance that websites advocating specific people be run over by cars should be refused hosting services, whether they be nazis, communists, BLM supporters or Taylor Swift fans. Lol that wasn't hard. Did you expect I would back down for some reason?
Also according to the database line of duty deaths are actually down 5% this year and gun related deaths down 22%. Either come at me with some more made up shit or finally take a second to sit down and realize that your knee-jerk assumptions without any evidence make you, by the dictionary definition, prejudiced.
Jesus christ ACs... did you even follow the link to the database? The majority of those were traffic accidents and heart attacks. Fucking BLM secretly clogging police offiers' arteries, I fucking knew it.
Legally similar though. Both illegal "speech." And it is not that it is politically unpopular, there are a thousand sites that have that stuff, it is that they were praising the guy that ran over those people and encouraging others to do similar things, i.e. inciting violence.
Yes you are right. From the updated statements the reason given by GoDaddy and Google was actually that they were praising the guy that ran her over and encouraging more people to do similar things, i.e. inciting violence.
The same people who interpret all laws in the US, the courts. I don't get why this is hard to understand... did you not take US Government?
If they're too busy watching TV and getting fat
Are you not watching the news? There is more political involvement now than in a long time, but it seem like they spending all their energy hating black people for some reason.
the 100 or so other cops around the country they have killed
A fact which you have just now made up.
Alt-right are disciples of Hitler who did a little more than advocate...
Lol okay.
they need to start asking "What do you intend to use this domain for?"
Nope. They just give you the benefit of the doubt until you fuck up publicly enough that Google finds out about it. This is now, and has been for a very long time, how the internet works. It is the same reason Google can take down domains that host C&C servers for botnets.
This whole idea makes no sense. The internet is not a town square, it is a million private clubs for all kinds of different groups of people. You think you would be able to freely post on the Daily Stormer to rebut their hate speech? Hell no. The internet is actually anti-open-communication because people just go to the communities that they already agree with. Your town square ideal is more dead now than it has ever been and the internet is not bringing it back.
Yeah because that wouldn't be legal. This is. Deal with it.
Again, it doesn't matter what you think. This has been ruled on by the courts. Google has already used this power, for instance, to take down botnet C&C domains. The question is only whether the domain falls into something that is covered by the law, and it pretty clearly does. What they did wrong was specifically target an individual with their hate speech, which is also defamation and not legally protected.
Common carrier status has been lost
That phrase does not mean what you think it means. Google is perfectly within their rights to do this. Research the Communications Decency Act.
Maybe someone will be listening to me after all.
No, I don't think so.
frankly, probably far more from the left than from the right
Probably not.
Nope. It has been ruled under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act that ISPs and hosting providers can act to remove harmful or objectionable material but are under no strict obligation to do so. This happens all the time when Google takes down sites that host malware, but they are not held liable for not taking down other sites (or not taking them down fast enough) that end up causing widespread damages.
Cool story bro. See you in the history books. You will be in a little section about "sympathizers."
No I'm going with you are defending people committing violence and denying that it is happening. That puts you on their side.