Moreover - I'm pretty sure anyone with a modicum of net-literacy could find that video with relative ease if they really wanted to. It's clearly not a binary of proliferation and censorship, but a complex gradient where different mediums of curation have different thresholds for that kind of exposure.
You cannot forfeit a right. The right either exists or it doesn't exist. Anything that can be forfeited is a privilege. Free speech is a right, but using other people's hardware to do so (via hosting/CDN services) is a privilege.
Nevertheless, you have the right to free speech, just not a platform. The government hasn't made it illegal for Kiwifarms to have a website, it's just that nobody wants to be a part of hosting or distributing it. That's literally the right of free association at work.
Many hold the opinion, as do I, that a felon serving their time and then being left unable to vote is a violation of their civil rights.
> If I sell a copyright I've forfeited the right to monopolize that work.
You haven't forfeighted anything. You've sold a commodity. That's not the same thing.
> Nevertheless, you have the right to free speech, just not a platform. The government hasn't made it illegal for Kiwifarms to have a website, it's just that nobody wants to be a part of hosting or distributing it. That's literally the right of free association at work.
A platform is a privilege (e.g. a VPS), but they do have a right to common carrier infrastructure. The author talks about their ISP dropping them, which ISPs in the U.S. are considered common carriers (not sure about Paris). A common carrier cannot discriminate on it's clientele short of direct government action regarding criminal or national security issues. Neither of those is the case with KiwiFarms. Distasteful? Sure, but not criminal.
Is your argument that we should not punish crimes with imprisonment or is it that people do not have a right to personal autonomy?
Criminals still have rights, some specifically regarding the criminal justice system. Society has agreed after a conviction to not allow criminals to exercise some of their rights to protect the rights of their victims. For example, in order to protect others' right to life we have decided to infringe a murderer's right to liberty.
> Is your argument that we should not punish crimes with imprisonment or is it that people do not have a right to personal autonomy?
No, my argument is that even when imprisoned criminals' rights don't go anywhere. Society has decided it's better to violate criminals' rights to prevent the infringement of innocents' rights.
I have no way of verifying this and I suspect neither do you.
What I have seen is that the owners have explicit rules laid down that state that coordinating harassment is not allowed, which seems very much like a measure taken.
and as for harassment, let alone "serious harassment", 100% utterly false.. Even talking about interacting with people talked about is and has always been banned! Users downvote attempts as well. It's a gossip and documentation site, not a place for calls to action. "Look but never touch"
No, they want to make sure they are not fostering the market for the things you mention. Such that, yes, they are, in effect, limiting the veracity and effectiveness with which you can say and spread these things. That it makes it a little harder for you to see them, is a side show, at best. It is also harder for you to see illicit pictures of people, but we don't see that as an attack on freedom.
If I wanted to see Islamist/white supremacist/Russian state/anti-trans propaganda in 2006 this was possible. It is now much much harder.
The Christchurch shooting is actually a good example about the type of thing that should be available on the internet but isn't. It shows people the brutal reality and actually gives a few clues as to how to most effectively fight a mass shooter.