Re:The Next Chapter – moot retires from 4chan
by wpietri on Friday January 23, 2015 @03:13PM
(#8936984)
It is definitely not censorship. Nobody is under any obligation to help, say, pedophiles, promote their ideas. To say otherwise is to deny freedom of action and freedom of association.
If you have an ideological attachment to the existence of neutral providers, nobody can stop you from creating one. But as 8chan is discovering, people are free to criticize them for who they are helping and what effects that has.
Re:The Next Chapter – moot retires from 4chan
by current_call on Friday January 23, 2015 @07:23PM
(#8938246)
Nobody is under any obligation to provide infrastructure, but not providing infrastructure is different from trying to stop providers.
People are of course free to try and stop neutral providers. They are also free to lobby for a government that will censor them.
Re:The Next Chapter – moot retires from 4chan
by wpietri on Sunday January 25, 2015 @02:45PM
(#8943998)
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. If people are free to speak, I am also free to speak out against them. If people support particular speakers, I am also free to speak out against those supporters, and to shun them.
If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe a lawyer who does a lot of free-speech work: https://www.popehat.com/2013/09/10/speech-and-consequences/
Re:The Next Chapter – moot retires from 4chan
by current_call on Sunday January 25, 2015 @07:49PM
(#8944973)
Yes, it is legal to do many immoral things.
Edit: According to you, shouldn't Twitter be at fault for letting Pax say such hurtful things? They're providing him a platform.
Removing neutral infrastructure is restricting free speech through social conventions instead of through government. It's still censorship.