I'd draw the line at supervised access to conversation with normal people at: if someone is in jail maybe (this is a DIFFERENT debatable topic, beyond this context) their other rights are also suspended during the sentence.

Someone whom is not in jail, who is otherwise allowed to participate in society; abridging their rights of freedom of speech, expression, and discourse with others? That seems over-broad.

It is curious that this sort of restriction is possible. I don't think I could pay most of my monthly bills without the internet, for example. I assume there's also many jobs that require home internet.

As a condition of pretrial release for a presumed innocent party, even _accused_ child molesters should have access to a computer.

IOT - so if she uses some chipped sneaker to count steps, she is in violation. Now that is a law that nobody can follow in modern times. Ring a door bell at a neighbour - you are in violation.

There should be a amendments to all constitution, that no law is valid, that can not be followed by a citizen with reasonable effort.

The whole copyright violation criminalization started this pattern of laws, that every citizen can assumed to be in violation of.

And if everyone is in violation of such a law, the state is free to choose which violations are prosecuted and which are not. Capriciousness. One of many assaults on democracy, coming in a nice disguise.

If she were providing a bogus view of the pandemic, there could be consequences for public health. That doesn't seem to actually be the case as far as I can tell, but the magnitude of the punishment seems about right for the alleged crime.

Providing a bogus view of the pandemic is mainstream US politics. You only get this kind of repressive treatment if you've embarrased the government, in this case the state of Florida.

I suppose you're being cynical or are joking. Literally millions of US citizens would have to be arrested if that was crime. AFAIK, she's being arrested for having accessed government databases after she had been fired, or something similar to that for which she was not fully authorized.

yeah what is the concern that she's going to hack the president's phone and steal the launch codes? /s

How about blacklisting people from monetary/financial services such as banks and credit card co's based on their political views? That goes even further.

https://spectator.us/topic/financial-blacklisting-sargon-akk...

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/02/27/financial-blacklis...

As shown by the well known bastion of unbiased, neutral, apolitical news... Breitbart.

Quite honestly this looks like a toxic, bigoted individual. I'm absolutely unsurprised that some organizations choose not to do business with him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Benjamin

So, you don't like him, but that has nothing to do with the principle of banning people from society based on legal speech which is the point I'm making. This sort of behavior is toxic to society at large, and so are the implications. I'm glad your political views are of the correct sort....today. Oh, wikipedia.

Think of the financial institution that chooses not to do business with him as a bakery, and sargon is a gay wedding cake.

Banned from society? I was unaware that you're "banned from society" because private business Patreon doesn't want a relationship with you.

The modern examples of a gay couple being refused service is a poor example. They can’t just go to the other financial institutions, because all of them have black-listed them. An Internet business cannot feasibly operate on cash alone.

Just like any farmer in the 1800s can just go lay his own railroad tracks across the continent, every website that hosts wrongthink is equally capable of creating their own banks, payment processors, data centers, and internet connections. These businesses aren’t restaurants. They’re critical, privatized infrastructure.

What banks was he black listed from?

None, this person is apparently complaining he was blacklisted from Patreon.

If you become a public figure based on a toxicity and bigotry businesses may not want to be associated with you.

Patreon is not a bank. Patreon didn't even exist a few years ago. They are a middle man to collect money using other middle men. They don't even have a monopoly on this.

This person is also not a US citizen.

> that has nothing to do with the principle of banning people from society based on legal speech

Your comment is bizarre and nonsensical. No one has been "banned from society" based on "legal speech", a meaningless phrase.

A lot of people have been banned from using specific internet services because they used them to make threats of violence, or to tell dangerous lies about COVID.

This isn't "banning them from society". Get a grip!

Also, we are talking two classes of people here:

* people who work against humanity to spread COVID-19 based on a pack of obvious lies

* people who wish to violently overthrow the elected US government based on a pack of obvious lies

and frankly, these people can get fucked. They are destroying the country and the planet, and they deserve every single penalty the law can give them.

If private corporations, which Republicans claim to love, use their perfectly legal power to stop doing business with horrible psychopaths, then good for them.

One side went crazy, and now we have to choose sides.

Are you on the side of the delusional hateful lawbreaking violent psychopaths, or with the majority?

(My theory - you are not with the majority.)

People were banned from financial services for growing weed and being sex workers, largely at the request of the right. And now the right is complaining this is coming back to them.

> ..., largely at the request of the right

Operation Choke-Point was actually an Obama era policy.

The equivalent would be advocating for "growing weed and being sex workers".

No, the equivalent would be anyone else banned from patreon for violating terms of service. Patreon is not a bank or a 'financial institution'.