[_8j50]

I am all for a law compelling companies like CF to cooperate with LE and censor on behalf of the state if that is the will of the people. They are a utility provider that has not been expected by society to fund and administer a censorship operation. Go and vote if you think they should be compelled to censor.

[6c737133]

lol inevitably, the "muh censorship" and the "muh 1FA rights!!!" comments are always the most entertaining, and least informed comments on these subjects

CF has *no power to censor anyone*

Refusing to provide FREE DDoS Protection, and refusing to FREELY CACHE vitriol, are not "censorship"!

Nor are either of those actions an infringement on any American's rights as defined by the 1st Amendment [friendly reminder that there are nations, other than America, in the world]

Sure - CF are not content moderators ... but, neither are they "a public utility provider" ... they are, however, a *for-profit commercial enterprise*, and as such, they get to choose who they DO, or DO NOT, do business with

If you think any of the sites offloaded by CF deserve the free DDoS protection and caching services CF was providing - by all means, spin up some servers and provide it to them yourself - you have that right.

[_8j50]

I agree with some of what you said but even banning someone from say HN is censorship. It just means you prevent them from saying something, they can bypass your censorship or find a different platform but banning for the cause of restricting content is censorship even if the censored can still get services elsewhere. Also, for the utility part, neither are ISPs technically so by that it just means they want the same telco rules to apply to them.

[jackson1442]

Exactly. Providers have Freedom of Association, and I argue that everyone should have freedom _from_ being doxxed and harassed.

[Hamuko]

Unless I'm misunderstanding your idea, that sounds like it goes against the First Amendment.

[6c737133]

lol plz see my reply to OP

[_8j50]

That's why I said vote.

But not neccesarily, companies are not people they are not protected by the bill of rights and this is already happening when LE forcibly takeover domains to censor them with cause of course. Also, freedom of speech does not include speech made with thr intent and effect of causing demonstrable harm.

[Hamuko]

>That's why I said vote.

Constitutional amendments are so tricky that I'm not sure if just going out to vote is gonna change anything.

>Also, freedom of speech does not include speech made with thr intent and effect of causing demonstrable harm.

I don't think that is a legal standard for the First Amendment. Advocacy of violence is protected speech under the First Amendment.

[_8j50]

States needs to ratify amendments so having enough state legislatures and laws to support the amendment is the best way. Having someone propose it at the fed level is the easy part.