Gregory's Server@mattb @ariadne @opendna @eff there’s no good faith argument for KF specifically to be given internet service, there’s only abstract free speech arguments which rely on an assumption that any denial of speech invariably and unalterably leads to totalitarianism.
Compelling a company to provide a service which nobody would defend directly, seems somewhat ridiculous to me.
|
Top-level
2 comments
 @mattb @cmsj @ariadne @eff We are already well down that path: refusing service to LGBT+ is protected, as evidenced by multiple SCOTUS rulings. As is refusing service for partisan membership or political beliefs. In that context, the argument here is that violently hateful anti-LGBT+ speech is uniquely privileged. The decision has already been made about who should not be protected: the people KF is dedicated to terrorizing. |
@cmsj @ariadne @opendna @eff It's fine as long as we all agree on who nobody should defend. History has plenty of examples of this not working well.
There are other means of achieving the same goal. I agree that corporations should not be allowed to take this power.