John Snape 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (235) comment rss

  • On the post: WSJ Op Ed Warns: Killing Section 230, Kills The Internet

    John Snape ( profile ), 02 Jul, 2019 @ 05:00pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    What is this legal distinction you seem to think exists between a "public" website and a "private" one?
    If I make a site that only allows my friends to join (or any other like-minded individual I choose to post there) that site is private and I have complete control over what is said there. If I make a site that is open to the public, the site is public, and I shouldn't be censoring legal speech there if I truly am open to the public.

  • On the post: WSJ Op Ed Warns: Killing Section 230, Kills The Internet

    John Snape ( profile ), 02 Jul, 2019 @ 04:46pm

    Re:

    And you couldn’t do a damn thing to stop your comments section from being flooded with it.
    If I didn't like hosting certain speech I could always make my site private. But if I say my site is open to the public, it should be open to the public and I shouldn't be censoring any legal speech.

  • On the post: WSJ Op Ed Warns: Killing Section 230, Kills The Internet

    John Snape ( profile ), 02 Jul, 2019 @ 04:33pm

    Re:

    So now it's not 'speech they don't like' (or don't want to host), it's 'third-party speech'. You've pivoted away from your original argument.

  • On the post: WSJ Op Ed Warns: Killing Section 230, Kills The Internet

    John Snape ( profile ), 02 Jul, 2019 @ 04:32pm

    Re:

    If a brick-and-mortar business can’t be forced to host third-party speech
    So now it's not 'speech they don't like' (or don't want to host), it's 'third-party speech'. You've pivoted away from your original argument.

  • On the post: WSJ Op Ed Warns: Killing Section 230, Kills The Internet

    John Snape ( profile ), 02 Jul, 2019 @ 04:20pm

    Re:

    Then how do you justify wanting to force speech upon platforms such as Twitter?
    I post the signs because I'm open to the public. If I didn't want to post the forced speech, I could create a private club and exclude the general public. If Twitter doesn't want to post forced speech, they can create a closed, private forum for their users and not say they're open to the public.

  • On the post: WSJ Op Ed Warns: Killing Section 230, Kills The Internet

    John Snape ( profile ), 02 Jul, 2019 @ 04:17pm

    Re:

    White supremacists probably think of Black Lives Matter propaganda as distasteful — but should the law force a White supremacist forum into hosting it?
    From what I've read, white supremacist scumbags have private forums and don't say they're open to the public. If Twitter doesn't like to host legal speech, they could do the same and make their site private, too. You're either open to the public, or you're not. If you are, then be ready to cater to customers you don't like.

  • On the post: WSJ Op Ed Warns: Killing Section 230, Kills The Internet

    John Snape ( profile ), 02 Jul, 2019 @ 04:12pm

    Re:

    Forced speech is still forced speech. Just because you think it's beneficial doesn't mean you can force it on anyone.

  • On the post: WSJ Op Ed Warns: Killing Section 230, Kills The Internet

    John Snape ( profile ), 02 Jul, 2019 @ 04:10pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    If a restaurant can have a sign that says "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason", then why can't Twitter have the same sign?
    Sure! Let's put out the "Whites Only" or "No Irish Need Apply" signs, right? They're totally legal, right? Again, if you say you're open to everyone, then be open to everyone. Don't like it? Either close shop or make it a private club.

  • On the post: WSJ Op Ed Warns: Killing Section 230, Kills The Internet

    John Snape ( profile ), 02 Jul, 2019 @ 04:05pm

    Re:

    Oh, you mean like Hands On Originals, which was forced by law...
    Since you couldn't read what I posted earlier:
    My store must have specific signs at specific sizes at specific locations inside. Could I say 'no' to posting these forced-speech signs? Will you pay my attorney fees when they fine me for not posting them?
    Just because it doesn't fit in your narrative of what forced speech is doesn't mean it's not forced speech.

  • On the post: WSJ Op Ed Warns: Killing Section 230, Kills The Internet

    John Snape ( profile ), 02 Jul, 2019 @ 04:00pm

    Re:

    Show me a private business that the law can force to host White supremacist propaganda...
    When you limit it to solely "white supremacist propaganda" (whatever that is), you're deliberately arguing in bad faith. Government forces businesses all the time to host speech they don't like or want (that isn't in your extremely-limited example), yet Twitter, et al., are the only ones you seem to care about defending.

  • On the post: WSJ Op Ed Warns: Killing Section 230, Kills The Internet

    John Snape ( profile ), 02 Jul, 2019 @ 03:56pm

    Re:

    How would you feel about the government forcing you into hosting White supremacist propaganda on your forum against your explicit desire to not host it? For what reason should the government ever be able to force speech upon an Internet platform?
    Just like they force speech on any other type of business. If you don't want to host free speech from everyone, either create a closed system for just you and your like-minded friends, or close your doors in protest. Don't pretend you're open to everyone when you're not.

  • On the post: WSJ Op Ed Warns: Killing Section 230, Kills The Internet

    John Snape ( profile ), 02 Jul, 2019 @ 03:44pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    So the Constitution does or does not apply to private businesses? Let me know when you pick one.

  • On the post: WSJ Op Ed Warns: Killing Section 230, Kills The Internet

    John Snape ( profile ), 02 Jul, 2019 @ 03:42pm

    Re:

    Government forces speech on businesses all the time. My store must have specific signs at specific sizes at specific locations inside. Could I say 'no' to posting these forced-speech signs? Will you pay my attorney fees when they fine me for not posting them?

  • On the post: WSJ Op Ed Warns: Killing Section 230, Kills The Internet

    John Snape ( profile ), 02 Jul, 2019 @ 03:36pm

    Re: Re:

    We constantly get people spouting drivel about "The constitution should apply to private buisnesses (even though it's only about the extent/limits of government power)"
    Are you really advocating we go back to "Whites Only" signs? Your statement that the constitution only applies to government and not businesses would make those signs legal again.

  • On the post: WSJ Op Ed Warns: Killing Section 230, Kills The Internet

    John Snape ( profile ), 02 Jul, 2019 @ 03:34pm

    Re:

    If you say you're open to the public, then be open to the public, not just a subsection of it.

  • On the post: WSJ Op Ed Warns: Killing Section 230, Kills The Internet

    John Snape ( profile ), 02 Jul, 2019 @ 03:02pm

    How §230 should read...

    (2) Civil liability No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
    (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, UNLESS such material is constitutionally protected; or
    (B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).

  • On the post: NY Governor Offers Journalists A Gift No Journalist Would Be Interested In Receiving

    John Snape ( profile ), 25 Jan, 2019 @ 07:54pm

    Equal protection under the laws should also be equal prosecution under the laws.

    If I kill someone while silent, or while screaming, "I hate cops/I hate blacks," I still committed murder and should be prosecuted for murder.

  • On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

    John Snape ( profile ), 03 Sep, 2018 @ 05:33pm

    Re:

    The rest sounds reasonable, except I do find it extremely difficult to believe your father has never heard of National Review, especially if he lived through the 60s and 70s and is a conservative.

    It's about as believable as living in New York your whole life and never once hearing about Central Park or Manhattan.

  • On the post: Disney Fixes Its Sketchy DVD Rental License, Wins Injunction Against Redbox Over Digital Downloads

    John Snape ( profile ), 02 Sep, 2018 @ 08:45am

    Re: Re: Re:

    You have no right to my work and you have no right to Disney's work.
    We should have access to your (and Disney's) work after fourteen or twenty-eight years, but we don't. Return copyright to its original length of time. Why should you be able to monetize your work for decades after you die?

  • On the post: Warner Bros. Turns Harry Potter Fan Events Into Events For The Franchise That Must Not Be Named

    John Snape ( profile ), 24 Aug, 2018 @ 08:02am

    Re: Re: Lucky, I Guess

    From the article: By way of additional apology, the RIAA said it will send Peter Usher an Usher CD and T-shirt "in appreciation of his understanding."

    ...and then they will charge it to Usher as promotional costs...

Next >>