Re:Twitter refuses US order to disclose owner of anti-Trump ...
by jquery on Thursday April 06, 2017 @07:07PM
(#14055549)
If people only said nice and agreeable things there would be no need for the first amendment.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Twitter refuses US order to disclose owner of anti-Trump ...
by warlox on Thursday April 06, 2017 @09:46PM
(#14056395)
Why should Twitter be coerced into publishing racist tripe?
Re:Twitter refuses US order to disclose owner of anti-Trump ...
by jquery on Friday April 07, 2017 @04:06PM
(#14063095)
Why should AT&T be coerced into allowing racist phone calls? Why should ISPs be coerced into hosting racist web sites or allowing racists to download racist content?
The distinction between telecom infrastructure and Twitter/FB/Google is becoming less and less clear by the year.
Re:Twitter refuses US order to disclose owner of anti-Trump ...
by warlox on Friday April 07, 2017 @04:50PM
(#14063399)
Your analogy is absurd. Social networks are nothing like telecom at all.
It's more like GoDaddy or NameCheap refusing to host stormfront.
Re:Twitter refuses US order to disclose owner of anti-Trump ...
by jquery on Friday April 07, 2017 @06:41PM
(#14064026)
If GoDaddy was the only DNS provider, would you feel the same way? At what point does the government need to step in and say the Constitution applies here?
[dead]
Re:Twitter refuses US order to disclose owner of anti-Trump ...
by michaelmrose on Thursday April 06, 2017 @07:26PM
(#14055659)
In an environment where law, custom, or technical challenges makes it difficult to silence dissent you can speak out against popular injustice as well as voice unpopular racist opinions.