News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Supreme Court Poised to Reconsider Key Tenets of Online S... by goodSteveramos on Thursday January 19, 2023 @12:40PM (#34443122)
>You have no right to someone else's property

This is totally false in every sense. Try kicking out every African American customer from your restaurant. The Feds will bury your ass in lawsuits if not hate trumped up hate crime charges.

> be careful what you wish for

Why does everything you say sound more like a threat than a real argument? We can have different laws for the internet and telephone. Who is the “they” you are talking about?

Re:Supreme Court Poised to Reconsider Key Tenets of Online S... by fnordpiglet on Thursday January 19, 2023 @01:28PM (#34443697)
They are however allowed to kick someone out who the other patrons find abusive or offensive in their conduct or behavior. If you went into a restaurant screaming about killing all the black people, you shouldn’t expect a lot of sympathy from anyone when they kick you out.
Re:Supreme Court Poised to Reconsider Key Tenets of Online S... by goodSteveramos on Thursday January 19, 2023 @01:53PM (#34444022)
This is a strawman. Instigating immediate violence is illegal and not what people are being censored on social media for.
Re:Supreme Court Poised to Reconsider Key Tenets of Online S... by fnordpiglet on Thursday January 19, 2023 @02:10PM (#34444270)
I don’t think saying all black people should be killed is construed as instigating immediate violence, but you can change it to any stark racism you want and the outcome will be the same. And people are being censored for racism, homophobia, spreading harmful misinformation, and all sorts of stuff that will have the same outcome if you started yelling it in a restaurant. Listen, I know it must feel really lonely holding views most people find offensive to hear. No one can stop you from holding them or sitting in your basement muttering to yourself or even going out on the sidewalk and muttering it to passerby’s. But no business owner is going to let you offend their customers. Mega-globo corp or the coffee shop next door.
Re:Supreme Court Poised to Reconsider Key Tenets of Online S... by fnordpiglet on Thursday January 19, 2023 @02:13PM (#34444313)
And to head it off, no one is censoring conservatives. They’re just censoring conservatives who are saying generally offensive stuff. Being a conservative isn’t an excuse for being an asshole, and no private business is obliged to amplify assholes.

I miss when conservative meant “let’s not spend so much money” instead of “I hate a lot of people and want to be as offensive as possible”

Re:Supreme Court Poised to Reconsider Key Tenets of Online S... by SideQuark on Thursday January 19, 2023 @02:34PM (#34444561)
> >You have no right to someone else's property

> This is totally false in every sense.

Every sense huh? Seems that's a bit overstated. Your rights to others property is extremely limited, and your example of a protected group does not apply to most groups. I can kick out everyone with last name starting with "A", anyone over 5'6", all left handed people, kids, blue eyed people, in fact, the majority of groups I can think of are perfectly bannable from all sorts of properties.

Very few groups (9 under Federal Law, maybe 10 if newer Genetic Material laws end up fitting) have special exemptions as a class to prevent this. It is in no way a concept that applies to any group except protected classes. These classes are given extra rights that do not apply to everyone.

And it does apply to my property. I can kick out all of any group from my house or car. Because they have no rights to that property.