https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200625/16303844790/just-...
Parler bans "tortious" speech, meaning speech that would open someone up to a civil tort, think defamation.
In fact, Parler later switched to just using the simplified wording of "we won't be used as a tool in a civil tort"
-
My example is not tortious, it is not targeting a person in a direct and personal manner.
There is _a lot_ of hate speech that is not tortious, and does not fall under "direct and very personal"
Spamming nig**r in a public forum is upsetting to some readers, but not covered under the fighting words doctrine they tried to invoke nor their guidelines.
Saying "I hate these damn <insert race or religion> they should all go back home" is the same.
-
And like I mentioned above, your article is out of date, their latest guidelines before going down no longer even bothered with breaking this out and all of what was quoted no longer existed.
Instead it was all replaced with
> Parler will not knowingly allow itself to be used as a tool for crime, civil torts, or other unlawful acts.
You can confirm this by googling this URL (which us obviously down if you try to visit it directly) "https://legal.parler.com/documents/guidelines.pdf"
The latest revision was on 12/04
Site B is just like Site A, but with less reach. However, their TOS allows hate speech as long as it's not tortious
So on Site A a comment spamming nig**r will get you banned, and on Site B it is a-ok as long as it doesn't mention anyone's name.
-
Site B should be expected to have more hate speech.
Additionally even if Site A gets hate speech, it's providers are more likely to give it leeway since it's not by design that hate speech appeared.
Meanwhile Site B, by the very virtue of it's design becomes a lightning rod for hate speech not allowed on Site A, and it is understandable providers are not on board with it.