The ‘Common Carrier’ Solution to Social-Media Censorship

Guille said:
The points the OP article make add up to the biggest steaming pile of dog shit I've ever seen, and I've owned some big dogs.

Let's start with the first sentence and the comparison to the railroad. You pay to ride the rails so right there's no comparison. How many of you have paid one damn dime to facefuck or twatter? None of you, that's how many. The railroad doesn't deny service due to speech because it's not central to their business.

The focus on facefuck and twatter is just stupid, they're apps. The are big apps but they're still just apps and free at that. Their presence on the Internet does not preclude anyone else from launching a competing app so they are not monopolies.

What Amazon Web Services did to Parler is a huge problem though. Money changed hands there and AWS is not an app, they're infrastructure. Not only that, the argument their lead attorney made in court regarding the Parler dust up was fascist to the core.

Amazon is the problem.
Click to expand...

I feel your emotion.
 
Guille said:
There's no emotion to it. Contracts either matter or they don't.
Click to expand...

Well emotion or no emotion, you are basically correct.

Doesn't matter if you pay for the service or it's free, they still have the right to deny service. Unruly passengers get kicked out of trains all the time.
 
AProudLefty said:
So you think McDonald's customers should be allowed to disrupt their restaurants because they paid for the food? How about Greyhound? Assholes paid for the service too.
Click to expand...

I think a contract gives you certain rights that "getting free shit" doesn't give you. Do you really not know how this works?
 
AProudLefty said:
Question: How do you win a case after you clearly breached the agreement?
Click to expand...

You don't. On the other hand if you post stuff that clearly doesn't breech the TOS but is politically unpalatable to the company running the service and they kick you off, then they're going to lose.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
You don't. On the other hand if you post stuff that clearly doesn't breech the TOS but is politically unpalatable to the company running the service and they kick you off, then they're going to lose.
Click to expand...

Of course they will likely lose in that scenario.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
You don't. On the other hand if you post stuff that clearly doesn't breech the TOS but is politically unpalatable to the company running the service and they kick you off, then they're going to lose.
Click to expand...

Oh I forgot.... I am going to go the Legion way.
 
AProudLefty said:
So you think McDonald's customers should be allowed to disrupt their restaurants because they paid for the food? How about Greyhound? Assholes paid for the service too.
Click to expand...

You really ought to up your game, you're useless at this! I very much doubt if you'd be saying all that if the tables were turned. It's clear that you're incredibly partisan and one sided.
 
Silencing all who do not agree is the goal of the Regressive Left....these fucks are hard core abusers....the have zero interest in stopping.
 
Primavera said:
You really ought to up your game, you're useless at this! I very much doubt if you'd be saying all that if the tables were turned. It's clear that you're incredibly partisan and one sided.
Click to expand...

If you own a business and people pay for your service. Should you allow those who paid for your service to do whatever they want?
 
Of course businesses cannot refuse services to those with different political views. This thread is a Red Herring. Legion's threads typically smell fishy.
 
The answer is that you can refuse to serve someone even if they’re in a protected group, but the refusal can’t be arbitrary and you can’t apply it to just one group of people.

To avoid being arbitrary, there must be a reason for refusing service and you must be consistent. There could be a dress code to maintain a sense of decorum, or fire code restrictions on how many people can be in your place of business at one time, or a policy related to the health and safety of your customers and employees. But you can’t just randomly refuse service to someone because you don’t like the way they look or dress.

Second, you must apply your policy to everyone. For example, you can’t turn away a black person who’s not wearing a tie and then let in a tieless white man. You also can’t have a policy that sounds like it applies to everyone but really just excludes one particular group of people. So, for example, a policy against wearing headscarves in a restaurant would probably be discriminatory against Muslims.

A couple of recent court cases illustrate the fine line between discrimination and a justifiable refusal of service. In each case, a Colorado baker was sued for violating discrimination laws.

In the first case, the baker refused service to a customer who wanted her to bake a cake with anti-gay Bible verses on it. The customer argued that he was discriminated against because of his religious beliefs. But the court ruled that this was not discrimination because the baker had a consistent policy of refusing to create cakes that used derogatory language or imagery.

So, there you have it, teabaggers and their dear leader can be banned for spreading conspiracy theories, just like a newspaper can refuse to publish your letter to the editor.

Just like people being threatened banning some users of JPP, some have.
 
no worries said:
The answer is that you can refuse to serve someone even if they’re in a protected group, but the refusal can’t be arbitrary and you can’t apply it to just one group of people.

To avoid being arbitrary, there must be a reason for refusing service and you must be consistent. There could be a dress code to maintain a sense of decorum, or fire code restrictions on how many people can be in your place of business at one time, or a policy related to the health and safety of your customers and employees. But you can’t just randomly refuse service to someone because you don’t like the way they look or dress.

Second, you must apply your policy to everyone. For example, you can’t turn away a black person who’s not wearing a tie and then let in a tieless white man. You also can’t have a policy that sounds like it applies to everyone but really just excludes one particular group of people. So, for example, a policy against wearing headscarves in a restaurant would probably be discriminatory against Muslims.

A couple of recent court cases illustrate the fine line between discrimination and a justifiable refusal of service. In each case, a Colorado baker was sued for violating discrimination laws.

In the first case, the baker refused service to a customer who wanted her to bake a cake with anti-gay Bible verses on it. The customer argued that he was discriminated against because of his religious beliefs. But the court ruled that this was not discrimination because the baker had a consistent policy of refusing to create cakes that used derogatory language or imagery.

So, there you have it, teabaggers and their dear leader can be banned for spreading conspiracy theories, just like a newspaper can refuse to publish your letter to the editor.

Just like people being threatened banning some users of JPP, some have.
Click to expand...

OK, explain how a dress code applies to an Internet app fuckwit.
 
Guille said:
OK, explain how a dress code applies to an Internet app fuckwit.
Click to expand...

WTF?

How fucking stupid.

It's about SERVICE, retard, weather it's a dress code, baking a cake, publishing a letter, airing of a vulgar comment or providing a service.

We Reserve The Right To Refuse Service To Anyone For Any Reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top