[tedmcory77]

"Obviously actual terrorist group sites can and should be taken down, but this feels more murky than that."

§ 2384. According to the statutory definition of sedition, it is a crime for two or more people within the jurisdiction of the United States: ... To oppose by force the authority of the United States government; to prevent, hinder, or delay by force the execution of any law of the United States; or.

Terrorists.

[DJPocari]

Okay, but the problem is that we aren't using the same systems that would be used to take down an ISIS website. Instead we are becoming increasingly reliant on corporate leaders defining where the line is drawn. There is no due process or appeals system; they are the prosecutor and the judge.

[madeofpalk]

I think it's fair to say that Facebook/Twitter/AWS/whatever has been more lenient in favor of these "Capitol people" and Trump than ISIS.

Do you think Twitter would deliberate days/months/years to ban an ISIS account?

[adolph]

By that standard a civil rights era sit in or march was sedition. That doesn’t seem just, but I guess there is much more work to do.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

Which was indeed said by opponents of civil rights at the time. And people were arrested on that basis:

> December 13th 1954: White civil rights activist Carl Braden was convicted of sedition in Louisville, Kentucky on this day. His crime? He and his wife Anne purchased a home in an all-white neighborhood and then almost immediately sold it to an African-American.

http://todayinclh.com/?event=civil-rights-activist-carl-brad...

[adolph]

Its fascinating how the civil rights movement changed the enforcement of sedition law but did not lead to the repeal.

[verwyrelevant]

Those things are for judges to decide, not an Internet mob (or militant employees of Big Tech).

[dang]

It's not ok to create HN accounts for political battle. It's not what this site is for, and doing it will eventually get your main account banned as well. Please don't.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[strgcmc]

Actually businesses should and must decide these things for themselves. A lot of stores now enforce rules for customers to wear masks, without any legal mandate or ruling by courts that masks are mandatory. It's good business, because your other customers won't want to shop at your store if they don't feel safe in a pandemic.

Likewise, tech companies have the right to decide what is good business for themselves. Hosting a platform where insurrection and violence is being organized, will turn off your other customers and your employees.

Are we saying no to free markets and private enterprise getting to choose good business decisions for themselves now?

[heimidal]

So to be clear, you want to force a private company to do business with someone? How is this any different from a store having a “no shirt, no shoes, no service” sign?