Re: Parler

[Matthew Petach <mpetach () netflight com>]

Oh, geez...
I was going to ignore this thread, I really was.  :(


On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 6:13 PM Keith Medcalf <kmedcalf () dessus com> wrote:

> > The first amendment deals with the government passing laws restricting
> > freedom of speech. It has nothing to do with to whom AWS chooses to sell
> > their services. It is also not absolute (fire, crowded theater, etc.)
>
> You are correct and incorrect.  The First Amendment prohibits the
> Government from passing laws which constitute "prior restraint".  It does
> nothing with respect to anyone other then the "Government" and its agents.
>
> You are also incorrect.  Freedom of Speech is Absolute.  There is no prior
> restraint which precludes you from "(fire, crowded theatre, etc.)" whatever
> that means.  That does not mean that speech does not have "consequences".
> The first amendment only protects against prior restraint, it does not
> protect against the suffering of consequences.  And of course
> "consequences" come AFTER the speech, not BEFORE the speech.
>
> Furthermore your "(fire, crowded theater, etc.)" (whatever the hell that
> means) cannot, as a matter of fact, possibly justify any action taken prior
> to the so-called speech having been made as that would be an assumption of
> fact not in evidence (also known as a hypothetical question) and the courts
> do not rule on hypotheticals.  If you do not understand the difference then
> perhaps you should be sentenced to death since you have a hand, and having
> a hand it could hold a gun, and since it could hold a gun, you could also
> murder someone.  So therefore you should be put to death now as "prior
> restraint" to prevent you from committing murder.

You're being dense.

Private businesses can engage in prior restraint all they want.

Airlines, for example, if they suspect you pose a risk to the
other passengers on the flight, can refuse to take off while you
are on the plane, or even turn the plane back around and land,
and have you ejected.

They don't have to wait until you've beaten up another passenger,
tried to open a door mid-flight, or stabbed someone.

To bring it closer to home, an ISP can refuse to provide service to
someone they suspect is a spammer.  They don't have to wait until
the first spam is sent, they can exercise prior restraint and deny the
entity service based simply on the suspicion they may be a spammer,
and therefore not worth providing service to.

I am neither a lawyer nor a yankee doodle and I know these facts to be
> self-evident.

I am sorry to say your grasp of facts seems to be tenuous at best.  :(

Better luck in the next reality.

Matt