It in fact might be kinder to deny them rights now than life later.
People who openly advocate for mass violence even if vague and theoretical belong in prison.
Okay, so put them in prison!
But if they're not in prison they should have electricity, mail, communications.
Hell, even if they are in prison they get those things.
They can leave the market at any time, but ISPs should not be making these choices.
>As some of their heirs openly talk about murdering us
> People who openly advocate for mass violence even if vague and theoretical belong in prison.
Wait.......didn't you just openly advocate for mass violence (denying them oxygen) against the philosophical heirs of Nazis, even if only in a vague and theoretical fashion?
> It in fact might be kinder to deny them rights now than life later.
Lock up the bad guys now so we aren't in a position where our only options are fascism or murder.
I very much agree but this is so one-sided. Would you support arresting Muslims who support Shariah? Would you support arresting Stalinists?
There are sadly so many groups that advocate for mass violence I think it's pointless how people only seem to care about the single one that's most vilified and defeated.
The constitution doesn't say you have a right to water, electricity, internet service, sewer service, etc.
Meanwhile the conservatives in the US are saying that corporations have a right to choose who they serve based upon their religious beliefs. See the SCOTUS Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling on whether they must serve a gay couple.
I'm pretty sure I could argue that Nazism is against someone's religious beliefs....
This gotcha only works when your opponent is pro business and you want them oppressed by businesses. However republicans are starting to turn anti-business. Take for instance the kerfuffle Ron DeSantis had with Disney.
But once those religious rights have been granted, it's possible for that pendulum to swing the other way.
Must a power company, say, give power to the NY State NAMBLA headquarters? That's the easy one.
The more complex one is arguing that the insurrection was against your religious beliefs (because your religion espouses non-violence), and then the power company could say cut off power to offices held by congress people that supported the J6 criminals?
Unfortunately you are misinformed. The baker was quite willing to serve a gay couple. The Supreme Court never said the baker can not serve gays if he doesn't want to.
What the Supreme Court said is a baker cannot be forced to engage in an activity (gay wedding) that he disagrees with even if it is as remote as a baking the cake. The baker made it clear if they wanted a plain cake he would have sold it to them.
To put it simply: Maybe if you'd just let people gripe away in peace on their little gossip forums you wouldn't have so many problems in the world.
Funny way to describe "swatting campaigns and content that is illegal in many countries" but ok
Do you have evidence that Null knew about people organizing these on KiwiFarms and openly endorsed them or at least tolerated them? Do you have anything to confer upon him some kind of liability for the actions of his users other than "I don't like him so fuck him"?
> illegal in many countries
No one cares whether it's illegal in any random country. Other countries ban lots of things for utterly cretinous reasons.
Attempting to characterize a gossip column as a "harassment" site isn't working. The EFF is openly commenting now because people like you who are pushing that narrative have failed, and have managed to piss off all the wrong people. You might want to consider rethinking your position.
I think website hosts should be able to drop people for most reasons, but that's not what's happening here
Though I would say cloudflare isn't quite up to that level.
Edit: Seeing this downvoted is disappointing. Access to utilities needs to be treated as a right. Only the courts should be able to take it away.