[thinkfurther]

Just like the right to free speech is useless without a spirit of tolerance in the population, the same goes for inciting violence being illegal.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/charlottesv...

Why does this story about CF dropping the Daily Stormer have not simply one comment saying "Good."? Why is there even a discussion? No one is defending it explicitly, but many do implicitly.

[edraferi]

Because you can't operate systems as big as the internet on a case by case basis. People are concerned that this action could lead to other, more noble, speech being suppressed by corporations like cloudflare.

I'm happy they're offline for the moment, but I wish it was because of a court order focused on specific actions (eg incitement of specific violence) rather than a single person's disapproval of their (really quite terrible) message.

[ajuc]

> I'm happy they're offline for the moment, but I wish it was because of a court order focused on specific actions

but

> you can't operate systems as big as the internet on a case by case basis.

So - you want such pages to be impossible to persecute for illegal activities in practice?

Anyway - having a website on a particular server is not a human right. If I come to your newspaper and demand you put my stuff in there - you can say "no" and don't have to explain yourself, and it's not a violation of free speech.

The violation of a free speech would be if somebody forbid you to print your newspaper at all. It's not the case - daily stormer can put servers in basement and publish their propaganda from there. So - free speech is irrelevant to this case.

It's simply about people refusing to do business with assholes, and I am quite confused why would anybody oppose that attitude.

[edraferi]

Heh good point, let me clarify:

Private internet companies should operate with scalable, predictable rules. They should be required to operate without discrimination against legally protected classes, but otherwise are free to deny service to anyone.

Courts should punish people and organizations that produce violence, discrimination against protected classes, and/or libel. This production may be direct or indirect; Judges draw the line. When those people/organizations are punished, all their outlets should be effected.

Mostly I just want these actions to be super credible and super effective. The fascists are crying unjust censorship left and right... I want social decency enforced in a way that undermines that argument.

For example, I wish the Charlottesville counter protest was 10,000 people standing together, in silence, holding signs saying "SHAME" and "Liberty and Justice for ALL." Then the Nazis would have no grounds to claim their speech was suppressed, and also no grounds to claim that they represent anything but an angry, alienated minority.

[thinkfurther]

Fair enough. I agree in that I think it's lame it had to happen this way, but I'm still glad it happened this way rather than not at all.