[jbarciauskas]

The US standard for what is legally free speech is absurdly low. Why should companies hold themselves to it? Why should they force themselves to support organizations that promote the wholesale elimination of other classes of people?

[stuart78]

The ‘US Standard’ for free speech is exactly where it should be, and applies to the government’s role in censoring citizen speech. Joyent, as a business has no obligation to support anything outside of their own policies.

[lgierth]

I think they were saying, if money is free speech, and racist slurs are free speech, and anti-semitic conspiracy theories are free speech, then the quality standard for something to be free speech is low, and any mildly sympathetic individual or organization would put their own standard for free speech higher.

[jbarciauskas]

I think we are mostly in agreement?

[syshum]

The "US Standard" generally means the standard by which the people of the US value the concept of Free Speech, which extends beyond that of the 1st amendment. We the people of the US codified our position on speech in the 1st amendment of our governing document to ensure that our government would never infringe upon our most vital right as free humans.

This however does not in anyway mean we believe others including large corporations should have the right to infringe upon said rights simply because "its a business"

There are many avenues one could seek to hold Joynet and others like them that proclaim to be open to all in their advertisements then reject many they disagree with. First and foremost would be Truth in Advertisement laws, Fraud, and other legal regulations which if they were properly enforced these companies would be clearly violating

No the "US Standard" of Free Speech is not just about government censorship, that is ignorant and naive view of what Free Speech is as a concept. Free Speech is concept where by a person is free to express themselves with out fear of censorship from either government or society at large. Free Speech today is under massive attack not by government in the US (yet) but by society at large.

//Edit for the record. I do not have nor do I plan to sign up for a Gab account (or twitter Gab's competitor) this is not about Gab as a service, I honestly could not care less about Gab it is about the precedent this sets when it comes to cloud and other internet infrastructure

[drivingmenuts]

"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."

I suggest you re-read that and point to where it says "society at large". The 1st Amendment is a restriction on the government, not on the people (except maybe the "peaceably" bit).

[syshum]

The Constitution is a document establishing and limiting government power. It has nothing to do with what I am talking about

Freedom of speech exist beyond and outside of the 1st amendment, that fact that many people believe all free speech issues are limited only to the 1st amendment and government censorship is part of the massive problem we have in society at large

[mychael]

> Why should they force themselves to support organizations that promote the wholesale elimination of other classes of people

Straw man arguments like this really lower the quality of discussion.

[jbarciauskas]

What part is a strawman? That is literally the conversation that takes place on Gab.

[jquery]

That conversation also takes place on Twitter and Facebook.