[rileymat2]

> denying him access to publication media because you believe that in the future that person might say something that might have who knows what effect on other people, who might do some crimes.

Is this the case here?

The statements in question are already made. Typically, the deplatforming happens after a violation has already been made. Which seems to be the case here, unless I am misunderstanding.

[adrian_b]

In the case of banishing someone like Trump from Twitter, where that is justified by many previous misleading messages, I agree that this is right.

However, this discussion thread started about the actions done against Parler.

I had not previously heard about Parler, but I understand that the efforts to stop its activity are based on claims that it does not perform adequate censorship of the content published there, unlike Facebook or Twitter.

If there are people that have published there things that are punishable by law, they should be punished. If Parler itself has done something illegal, then they should be punished.

However, if some private companies sabotage Parler based on the fact that Parler does not have the same censorship rules as themselves, then that is clearly wrong.

From what I have heard here, it might be good if Parler disappears, but I cannot accept that the end justifies the means.