Law protects valid contracts. If terminating the service was valid under the contract, nothing more to say. If it was a breach of contract, law protects the right to sue for damages.

Nobody said it was. What's your point here?

What laws were broken here?

Well, we know Krebs is a part 'social engineering hacktivist' part internet mobster.

Does it really matter when SC judges are harassed and stalked?

Yep, he definitely leans on the side of being a goon pretending to be internet police. It shouldn't be forgotten how he doxxed those teens on tenuous evidence. I hope someday he runs afoul of the law himself and reins in this nasty habit. Vigilante 'justice' by means of inciting hate mobs is not to be encouraged.

If they want privacy they shouldn’t be a public figure and trample on others’ privacy. And protesting isn’t harassment.

Protesting can be a form of harassment and it can be abused. Some places have laws around where you can protest like in front of abortion clinics.

One of the reasons people are angry is because the supreme court ruled that anti-choice protesters were legally entitled to protest in front of doctor's homes.

But protesting in front of supreme court justice's homes is apparently not legal...

You are shadow banned. Try checking your comments in incognito mode

>>this is not "rule of law".

Where does the law require a private (i.e., non-governmental) internet provider to provide service to any customer who shows up, even if carrying that 'customer' would harm their own reputation?

Do you think that ISPs are somehow subject to discrimination laws that require public-facing businesses to not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, age, etc., and that 8kun is a person in some such protected class?

Do you know for a fact that the provider had no terms of service that 8kun violated?

Why do you think you are a better judge of the truth from your seat an the comment forum than those people who actually are in the situation?

And, BTW, we might note that 8kun has not been reported to have taken or even threatened any legal action, so maybe, just maybe, this isn't quite the legal question you think it is.

sheesh

(but thanks for showing how easy it is to lob bad-faith bombs destructive to discourse and how much effort is required to even start to clean up the mess)

Freedom of assembly.

You are free to assemble with whoever you please.

You are also free to un-assemble, and nobody can force you to assemble if you don't want to.

It's the part of the 1st amendment that everyone forgets or willfully pretends doesn't exist because they want to force private parties to carry their hateful, bigoted messages.

Freedom!

>"You are free to assemble with whoever you please." >"You are also free to un-assemble, and nobody can force you to assemble if you don't want to."

We are mostly free to assemble or un-assemble. The government absolutely can "force you to assemble if you don't want to", and that underpins many civil rights and anti-discrimination laws.

There's no reason to believe we need to make "conspiratorial shitposter" a protected class. They seem to be doing fine.

That applies only when all participants are willing. The owner of private property such as a house, restaurant, or hosting service, is allowed to control who may access their property.

Closer to "rule of capitalism". Whoever signed that deal probably agreed to an at-will service that could be terminated at any time by either party. If Psychz makes the decision to avoid fallout and cut them off their network, that's their call. They have no obligation to serve a customer that they see as a liability.

Bake that cake citizen