Cutter wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 23:51:
Tomas, you're conflating personal censorship and legal censorship. When your parents tell you not to swear, yes, that is technically censorship but it's not at all the same thing as being forbidden protected speech under penalty of law. One gets you grounded for the weekend the other sends you to prison illegally.
Parler's business model is one of, ostensibly, 'free speech'. Well too bad for them that no one told them that there's no such thing as "free speech" in America. There is only, and has only ever been, "protected speech" in America. And with protected speech there are limits to what you can say, and potential legal liability for the things you say. In short you're allowed to criticize things you don't like but you are not entitled to a platform to dispense those criticisms either. Otherwise I could call your employer and tell them you're a pedophile and you'd have no legal recourse to do anything whether it was true or not. And do you really believe for even one second that anyone should be able to say whatever they like no matter how fucking crazy or hateful or illegal it is?
All these companies that have refused to have anything to do with Parler owe them nothing legally or morally. They have no responsibility or obligation to them in any way, shape, or form. And not a single one of them is stopping Parler from doing business or limiting their protected speech. Them refusing to do business with Parler is not a violation of their protected-speech. That's no different from you coming into my restaurant dressed as Hitler and telling me I have no choice but to serve you. Really? So where do my rights come in to it? See, if that happens, I point to the sign by the entrance as I'm escorting you from the premises, "The Management Reserves The Right To Refuse Service". I don't have to give you a reason why. I don't want on you on my property so out you go. Your rights end where mine begin. Feel free to stand on the sidewalk and cry about it all you like, your rights haven't been violated. You need to learn a little something about law.
Uhm, no I'm not conflating them. The fact that censorship can come from multiple sources was my exact point. I am bothered when people make up definitions for words that aren't accurate, like suggesting that what AWS and others did was not censorship. I suppose we could imagine that their basis for doing what they did may not have been to censor what was taking place, I mean, that goes against what they have publically stated, but regardless of all that, and irrespective of the correctness or legality of it, censorship occurred. Unless I'm mistaken, I've also never stated that I think they were wrong in doing so. My argument has been about how this affects things from here on out as our society and technology evolve (including how we communicate as humans).
In regards to the rest of your post, I agree with it. I'm not sure what I've said to convince you otherwise. It is starting to feel like you aren't even reading my posts. My point has been and still is that there is a change in technology and with it there should be some discussion regarding how that is affecting a great number of things including, but not exclusively our first amendment rights. I'm under no false impression that we have complete freedom of speech, nor have I ever stated such.
Edit: lost my temper today. Embarrassing, but I'll survive. This comment was edited on Jan 12, 2021, 22:33.