[AnthonyMouse]

> But that doesn't mean that anyone else should or should not. It's not like there aren't companies and service providers willing to host the content.

Isn't the service currently down?

> yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...

> A "proposal" that is an incitement to organized violence

But then you need not worry about what some website or service is doing because that is illegal and the police can arrest them for it.

Basically, a call to violence isn't information, it's action, like ordering a hit. The prohibited act is really the order, i.e. participation in a conspiracy to commit an act of violence, and the communication is only the evidence of it.

Compare mob boss who says "whack that guy" and goes to jail for it vs. news reporter who reports that mob boss ordered a hit, unintentionally informing a hit man who wasn't aware of the order. News reporter doesn't go to jail for that because their intent was only to communicate information, not enable the act of violence, even though they conveyed the same information and it had the same result.

[danans]

> Isn't the service currently down?

They are working on getting it up and running under a Russian ISP, DDos-Guard.

https://www.cnet.com/news/parler-website-is-back-online-in-l...

If sites like Gab and its ilk can figure it out, so cab Parler.

> > yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. > https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...

From that article:

"[In Brandenburg v. Ohio] the Court held that inflammatory speech--and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan--is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action"."

> But then you need not worry about what some website or service is doing because that is illegal and the police can arrest them for it.

You don't need to worry, but the website is well within their rights to worry about what people are posting to their site and take action to limit that if they see fit.

[AnthonyMouse]

> They are working on getting it up and running under a Russian ISP, DDos-Guard.

The article this discussion is attached to is called "DDoS-Guard to forfeit internet space occupied by Parler".

> If sites like Gab and its ilk can figure it out, so cab Parler.

Parler was bigger than Gab. It remains to be seen whether the scale presents an issue.

> "[In Brandenburg v. Ohio] the Court held that inflammatory speech--and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan--is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action"."

But that isn't the case where the phrase "fire in a crowded theater" came from and that quote doesn't even appear to cover the phrase itself, since a panic is potentially dangerous but not illegal.

Here's some more on why the phrase should be discontinued:

https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...

Bottom line, it's too vague to mean anything because all it implies is that unprotected speech exists without specifying any meaningful boundaries for it, so people regularly quote it in support of arbitrary overreach.

> You don't need to worry, but the website is well within their rights to worry about what people are posting to their site and take action to limit that if they see fit.

But we were talking about tolerance.

[danans]

> But we were talking about tolerance.

Tolerance for incitement to violence? I don't personally support tolerance of that, which is my right, and what I personally feel is better to avoid the spread of toxic cultures like found on Parler. Tolerance of diverse and non violence-provoking political opinions, including those I disagree with? That is something I totally support.

Parler clearly does tolerate incitement to violence, which is their right. Good for them for exercising it, but nobody has to support them, nor should anyone be prevented from supporting them. Likewise, if there are consequences (commericial or legal) for tolerating incitement to violence, Parler owns those too.

You are also free to tolerate it and provide services to support those who do.

[AnthonyMouse]

> Tolerance for incitement to violence?

That's the thing which is illegal because it isn't speech. It isn't information, it's action. See above.

> Parler clearly does, which is their right.

No, they don't. It violates their policy and they removed all that was reported to them.

[danans]

> That's the thing which is illegal because it isn't speech. It isn't information, it's action. See above.

It's a distinction without a difference. I don't want to host violence provoking content. I don't think others should either. You think they should, and you have your reasons. Everyone (and every organization) can make up their own minds.

Clearly, we disagree about which approach is better for society, and happily we do so cordially, which is just the sort of conversation we need more of.

> No, they don't. It violates their policy and they removed all that was reported to them.

That's false, and that it is false was upheld by the Federal judge today. Quoting https://www.cbsnews.com/news/amazon-parler-violent-content-w...

"This case is not about suppressing speech or stifling viewpoints," Amazon's lawyers stated in a court filing. "Instead, this case is about Parler's demonstrated unwillingness and inability to remove from the servers of Amazon Web Services ('AWS') content that threatens the public safety, such as by inciting and planning the rape, torture and assassination of named public officials and private citizens."

"Parler's refusal to moderate content resulted in a "steady increase" in violent content on the network, breaching Amazon's terms of service, AWS contended.""

[AnthonyMouse]

> It's a distinction without a difference. I don't want to host violence provoking content. I don't think others should either. You think they should, and you have your reasons.

Still no. Nobody wants to be hosting it. The question is what happens when perfect moderation is impossible, which it is.

> That's false, and that it is false was upheld by the Federal judge today.

You're quoting Amazon's lawyers, not the judge.

Wanting to do something hard and being less than 100% successful is not the same thing as not wanting or trying to do it.