[Nullabillity]

> You can't say "harassment is a crime" and then cry that you can't have "censorship" in some sort of misguided idea of free expression absolutism.

If it's bad enough that it's illegal then there are legal procedures to be followed. As little as I generally trust judges, there's at least far more oversight than having some random PR rep make the call in secret.

[csydas]

But twitter isn't a public service; at the end of the day, you're still playing by their rules and it is your choice to play with twitter or to play somewhere else. The difference in userbase between twitter and other services doesn't mean you don't have to follow twitter's house rules.

There's no reason a judge would need to get in on something like this, especially since Milo likely would be culpable by association under the US justice system, the result ultimately being the same. Personally, I don't like the idea of having to get the government involved in all online transactions - I'd like a place to say what I want where the worst that can happen is I get banned - it's not that I plan to say horrible things, it's that I don't trust when automated systems merge with state/federal law. (see: DMCA and youtube). Systems, even non-computer ones, can be gamed.

The US justice system has pretty much been gamed by this point, and it's a pretty expensive game to play. For someone like Milo, if Breitbart wanted to, they could bankroll him so he could play. For an individual like me? I can't afford to play the game. I don't want it to come to this, where you have to be able to afford participating in discussions online. You don't even have to say anything particularly egregious (or anything at all) to be the target of someone just fucking around with the systems.

I'd rather that the ramification for stuff like this was kept to accounts on websites instead of going to the courts.

[Nullabillity]

> I'd rather that the ramification for stuff like this was kept to accounts on websites instead of going to the courts.

I agree with that in a sense, but that's not currently the case. The question isn't public court or private company "court", it's whether there should be a private company "court" in addition to the public ones (which, mind you, can already get involved).

At least there is some degree of transparency and public influence on the public ones.

[csydas]

Mmm...ultimately, Milo Yiannopoulos, Leslie Jones, and everyone else has a choice to use Twitter - the fact that it's one of the largest social outlets doesn't really change that. The ban is an internal matter for Twitter as far as I'm concerned - and legal action stemming from the same issue is independent of that. There are plenty of reasons why there should be individual self-governance for non-public entities; like, for example, would you argue that cheaters in online games should have to be tested against the CFAA as opposed to a small private tribunal? There are things that happen online which are disruptive to the online communities, but not really illegal - I think that the communities should be allowed to self-govern. If you don't like the community rules, you can leave it.

And I do disagree that the transparency that is given in US courts is even useful. The jury process, for example, has nothing to do with justice and all about how easily influenced an individual juror is. It's a horrible component of the US legal system that should have been abolished a long time ago, or at least reformed. Likewise, Judges frequently will cowtow to personal prejudices or outside influences; even if appeals can eventually resolve the issue, this gets back to being able to afford to play, which is not a good system. Even if the legal costs are awarded at the end of the case, there's still the entire time while the case is being processed, lawyers who may not be willing to participate until that time, etc. It's an unacceptable solution in most cases.

[jonathankoren]

Well the consequences, are a lot more than not being able to play with someone else's web page.

My point is, no one really believes in absolutism.