Of course. Otherwise why even provide a service in the first place?
123 karma · joined August 1, 2017
Long before 4chan repeated everything Usenet had done many years earlier there was plenty of free speech on the Internet.
Not because nobody was in control to prevent it, but because the news admins who were in control believed in free speech enough to facilitate it. Although Usenet is a shadow of its heyday, that still applies even to this day.
If it's legal for children to enter a bar, I don't see why a bar should be able to refuse entry to children.
> Can a cinema kick someone out for talking during a movie?
If they're causing a problem for other people in the cinema and refuse to stop, sure. A right to be access a product or service shouldn't override other people's right to get what they paid for.
So for "lawful manner" in my above post: "lawful manner, or manner that doesn't negatively impact other customers".
> Can a dance club have a dress code?
If a club wants to only allow a specific type of member then it should be a private club.
Is it okay for me to buy donuts from him then?
When I was a teenager and first read Chomsky, being anti-censorship was a left-wing thing. I don't think Chomsky has changed his opinion on censorship, or his political persuasion, and neither have I.
It's a pity that people who believe in fascistic ideals (censorship and discrimination based on political beliefs) are what is deemed "the left" these days.
IMO, if you believe in censorship and do not support free speech you are not left-wing.
> claimed that refusing service to Nazis was "spurious" and "bigoted"
Do you seriously need me to explain that "bigoted" referred to the cake example? Seriously?
As for the rest. Cloudflare did not refuse service to "Nazis". Had they done so, they would have not had to remove that service, under the entirely spurious reason that Matthew Prince woke up in a bad mood and claims they wrote something he didn't like.
They're still providing service to Stormfront, and who knows how many other "Nazi" sites.
I don't believe that businesses should be allowed to discriminate against anyone who is behaving in a lawful manner.
Is that belief what you're calling a "weird personal ideology"?
> Do you have an similar argument for why Nazis shouldn't be fired, or why we shouldn't consider whether the people that we do business with employ, or are, Nazis?
If someone's beliefs don't negatively affect their ability to do their job, why should they be fired for their beliefs? Should Democrats be fired? Should atheists? Are "Nazis" the only people capable of bias and discrimination?
Likewise, why should someone's beliefs be a factor in whether I do business with them? If I'm buying something from someone why would anything other than price and quality of the product or service even come up?
Yes, that something is called suing for libel and proving it is libel in a court.
Simply claiming something is libel (which Prince doesn't even do in his blog post) doesn't make it libel.
> Usually you have to do something drastic to actively disprove the libelous claim, if you want to regain the lost reputation.
Because of Cloudflare's action there are now 1000 times as many people, including myself, who are aware of TDS's claim who otherwise wouldn't have heard of it.
He is also effectively saying that since he can and will remove sites he personally doesn't like, that he personally approves of every other site using Cloudflare.
The excuse he uses for terminating TDS is an absolute crock; if TDS genuinely did falsely and sincerely claim that Cloudflare supports them, then Prince could and should have simply asked them to remove that claim.
It's an outrage that businesses that want to enjoy all the benefits of selling to the public can discriminate against members of that public for any spurious or bigoted reason they like.
Don't wanna sell cakes to gay people or host pro-Nazi sites? Don't start a business serving the public then.
The French only fought because the British (who were not in command) told them to?
> They even forced the French at gunpoint who wanted to defend Dunkirk to destroy their weapons.
You just said the British told the French to fight on. Now you're saying they forced the French "at gunpoint" (?) to destroy their weapons?
> French who wanted to embark were shot at by the BEF [...] The BEF got away and the French fighting were captured.
Of the people rescued by British ships and taken to Britain, 123,000 were French and 198,000 were British.
As for the BEF "getting away", a second BEF was assembled by Britain to defend France after Dunkirk - again under the command of the French - despite France's defeat being inevitable at that point.
> All RAF fighter squadrons were moved to the UK ahead of the evacuation.
The RAF moved to the UK due to European bases being overrun by the Germans. Nevertheless, despite certain and imminent French defeat and despite requiring aircraft for its own survival, Britain did send squadrons to France after Dunkirk. The RAF in fact sacrificed around 1000 aircraft, and even more in personnel, in defence of France.
To be fair, I don't think many people are killed by toy guns. One thing I'll never forget from the land of Orwell is this from 15 years ago (virtually to the day, ironically enough):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2168430.stm
Three 12-year-old children were arrested
by five police officers who then fingerprinted
them and took DNA samples, after the youngsters
were seen playing with a toy gun.