Parler

Sun Jan 10 21:58:33 UTC 2021

The Courts have never interpreted the free speech rights to be totally without limits. I am pretty sure sedition defined as a concrete threat to take back the country by blocking the vote certification of the incoming President is not protected speech. Just because one does not moderate all content does not mean one cannot moderate some content. Mostly hands off does not imply totally hands off.

________________________________
From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+rod.beck=unitedcablecompany.com at nanog.org> on behalf of Matt Hoppes <mattlists at rivervalleyinternet.net>
Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2021 4:10 PM
To: sronan at ronan-online.com <sronan at ronan-online.com>
Cc: nanog at nanog.org <nanog at nanog.org>
Subject: Re: Parler

Is that illegal though?

> On Jan 10, 2021, at 10:07 AM, sronan at ronan-online.com wrote:
>
> Another interesting angle here is that it as ruled President couldn’t block people, because his Tweets were government communication. So has Twitter now blocked government communication?
>
>
>> On Jan 10, 2021, at 9:51 AM, Michael Thomas <mike at mtcc.com> wrote:
>>
>> 
>>>> On 1/10/21 5:42 AM, sronan at ronan-online.com wrote:
>>> While Amazon is absolutely within their rights to suspend anyone they want for violation of their TOS, it does create an interesting problem. Amazon is now in the content moderation business, which could potentially open them up to liability if they fail to suspend any other customer who hosts objectionable content.
>>>
>>> When I actively hosted USENET servers, I was repeatedly warned by in-house and external counsel, not to moderate which groups I hosted based on content, less I become responsible for moderating all groups, shouldn’t that same principal apply to platforms like AWS and Twitter?
>>
>>
>> Is it content moderation, or just giving the boot to enabling criminal activity? Would that more providers be given the boot for enabling voice spam scams, for example. Didn't one of the $n-chan's get the boot a while back? I don't seem to recall a lot of push back about that and it was pretty much the same situation, iirc.
>>
>> Mike
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20210110/738c6a99/attachment-0001.html>