First Amendment issue????

[Muss Muggins]

Of course it’s the point. Clearly you’ve never been in a diner in Las Vegas at 2 am, having stumbled past a sign declaring “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.” I write bail bonds. Nobody has a right to be bonded out by me. I refuse service constantly. It’s capitalism, with all its warts. . . .

That's not the point.

I don't know if you've been paying attention or not or maybe you just don't care, but it's happening to more and more folks, and businesses who aren't PC nor toe the ideological line - the cancel culture, censoring.

The story is that GoDaddy booted them off for "violation of terms of service" and that the site “both promotes and encourages violence" yet offered no explanation, no examples, no appeal and no notice.

How would you like that to happen to your website or business because the host doesn't agree with you or your opinions?

The point is - if it can happen to AR15.com , it can happen to this website.

 

[rwsmith]

My question is...

...does AR15.com actually promote violence or are they merely pro 2A?


Either way, GoDaddy stinks.

Youtube started taking down gun related videos and posters immediately found other sites to put their videos on which seemed to change Youtube's mind.

 

[ladder13]

They’re getting ahead of the strong arming.

 

[wheelgun28]

Of course it’s the point. Clearly you’ve never been in a diner in Las Vegas at 2 am, having stumbled past a sign declaring “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.” I write bail bonds. Nobody has a right to be bonded out by me. I refuse service constantly. It’s capitalism, with all its warts. . . .

Oh yeah...

I am in business and turn down business for all sorts of reasons. Some people don't like to hear NO!


The big issue is has big tech crossed the line into being a utility? Once they become a utility it's a whole new world for them.

Can the power company not want to provide power to the local gunshop? What about the phone company, bank, trash collector, and so on?

With GoDaddy, it's unclear exactly what part of the TOS was broken, if it was broken?

 

[wheelgun28]

Car a car maker refuse to sell you car because you support the second amendment? What about the grocery store or pharmacy?

What if you own a pro-second amendment web sight or shop that sells items the owner finds objectionable?

What if it's a store that sells posters and signs that someone else doesn't like?

Where does it end?

Who is the arbiter of good and bad?

 

[Ματθιας]

Of course it’s the point. Clearly you’ve never been in a diner in Las Vegas at 2 am, having stumbled past a sign declaring “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.” I write bail bonds. Nobody has a right to be bonded out by me. I refuse service constantly. It’s capitalism, with all its warts. . . .

No, it is not the point. Apples and oranges.

There's a HUGE difference between refusing service outright, like your example, and having a contractual agreement. Godaddy and AR15 had a contract.

 

[Muss Muggins]

Do you know what the contract stipulated?

No, it is not the point. Apples and oranges.

There's a HUGE difference between refusing service outright, like your example, and having a contractual agreement. Godaddy and AR15 had a contract.

 

[Ματθιας]

Do you know what the contract stipulated?

From the article:

The Biggest Gun Forum On The Planet Was Just Kicked Off The Internet Without Explanation
January 12, 2021 By Jordan Davidson

Instead of offering specifics about kicking the gun site off the internet, GoDaddy merely claimed that AR15.com violated its terms of service, which resulted in instant termination.

“On Monday, January 11, 2021, I received notice from our site registrar that AR15.com had violated their terms of service and that AR15.com would be shut down immediately,” President and Co-Founder of the gun site Juan Avila told The Federalist in a statement. “The registrar’s decision to de-platform AR15.com was final and no method to appeal was offered.”

“It remains unclear specifically what content allegedly violated the registrar’s terms of service,” he added.

When asked by The Federalist about the decision to remove AR15.com, GoDaddy claimed that the site “both promotes and encourages violence,” but did not offer any specific examples. Instead, they offered AR15.com 24 hours to relocate its business.

Edit to add citation

 

[steelslaver]

The first established your right to express your opinion. Nowhere is it written that anyone must publish it.

My opinion is if I own a business I should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason. It is my business and I should have the FREEDOM to run it the way I want. If I owned a car lot and decided not to sell a car to a guy because he had blue eyes that would be my business. But, I am sure the lot down the road can fix him up anyway if I want to be so stupid.

As far as the cake issue didn't they decide he did not have to make the cake? I know I certainly would not force anyone to cook my food.

As far as being a utility. at this point everyone needs electricity, water etc. The local power company has to give me power if I pay, but that is because they are the only provider to my location. Th AR forum has a wide choice of providers.

 

[Muss Muggins]

From the article:



Edit to add citation

I’m sorry, I don’t see a link to the contract . . .

 

[Ματθιας]

...does AR15.com actually promote violence or are they merely pro 2A?


Either way, GoDaddy stinks.

Youtube started taking down gun related videos and posters immediately found other sites to put their videos on which seemed to change Youtube's mind.

It wasn't just gun related videos, it was anybody who posted opinions about voter fraud, and videos of of the events from two weeks ago that didn't fit the narrative we are told to believe.

 

[Ματθιας]

I’m sorry, I don’t see a link to the contract . . .

If you're that interested it shouldn't be too difficult for you to find.

 

[Muss Muggins]

I’m not. You’re the one trying to convince me . . .

If you're that interested it shouldn't be too difficult for you to find.

 

[Onomea]

I know nothing about the AR15 Forum.

As to the 1st Amendment, I did learn in school as a boy that it is not unlimited. The classic example being that one cannot stand up in a crowded theater and scream, "Fire!" Seems like a sensible limitation to me.

I'd like to see a return to the FCC Fairness Doctrine of 1949, "a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced." FCC fairness doctrine - Wikipedia

I'd like to see it applied to social media on the internet.

I think it would be difficult to apply equitably, and that the FCC or other government enforcers would need constant monitoring, but I believe the effort would be worthwhile.

The current situation — whatever the medium — with all sides residing solely within their respective echo chambers, is a mess.

 

[Absalom]

That's not the point.

.... yet offered no explanation, no examples, no appeal and no notice.
....

That’s what the blog report is claiming, but it appears to be counterfactual in pretty much ALL aspects. According to GoDaddy’s own statement:

“Why did GoDaddy suspend services to AR15.com?

On January 8, we received a complaint regarding certain content on AR15.com. Per our policy, our team investigated the content in question and confirmed it violated our terms of service because it incited violence. On that same day, we notified AR15.com that they had 24 hours to remove the content, or their domain name would be suspended. AR15.com responded that the content had been removed, yet when we checked to confirm, the site showed the content still live. Accordingly, we suspended services on January 11.

Although we informed AR15.com they had 24 hours to take action, we actually provided them with 53 hours to remove the content. Again, because the content was not removed, we followed our terms of service and suspended services to AR15.com.“

 

[Muss Muggins]

You pays your money and you takes your chances . . .

That’s what the blog report is claiming, but it appears to be counterfactual in pretty much ALL aspects. According to GoDaddy’s own statement:

“Why did GoDaddy suspend services to AR15.com?

On January 8, we received a complaint regarding certain content on AR15.com. Per our policy, our team investigated the content in question and confirmed it violated our terms of service because it incited violence. On that same day, we notified AR15.com that they had 24 hours to remove the content, or their domain name would be suspended. AR15.com responded that the content had been removed, yet when we checked to confirm, the site showed the content still live. Accordingly, we suspended services on January 11.

Although we informed AR15.com they had 24 hours to take action, we actually provided them with 53 hours to remove the content. Again, because the content was not removed, we followed our terms of service and suspended services to AR15.com.“

 

[ladder13]

I know nothing about the AR15 Forum.

As to the 1st Amendment, I did learn in school as a boy that it is not unlimited. The classic example being that one cannot stand up in a crowded theater and scream, "Fire!" Seems like a sensible limitation to me.

I'd like to see a return to the FCC Fairness Doctrine of 1949, "a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced." FCC fairness doctrine - Wikipedia

I'd like to see it applied to social media on the internet.

I think it would be difficult to apply equitably, and that the FCC or other government enforcers would need constant monitoring, but I believe the effort would be worthwhile.

The current situation — whatever the medium — with all sides residing solely within their respective echo chambers, is a mess.

There are no honest, equitable and balanced people anywhere.

 

[Onomea]

Almost all stories have at least two sides, and often many more. Whether we agree or not with viewpoints expressed or decisions made, it is good for us to hear them out before making our own judgements, and taking action accordingly.

Added for Ladder13: Oh, I dunno.

I think we are all human, and prone to mistakes, and prone to suffer from our own prejudices and biases. But, I also think many of us are willing to listen to differing points of view, willing to be persuaded to change our minds, and willing to sincerely try to bring others around to our points of view through patient and civil discourse.

Or, if we cannot, many of us are willing to agree to disagree, with civility.

I am fond of saying that I think the ability to change one's mind is a sign of intellectual maturity. I think most of us have changed our minds about one thing or another in our lifetimes. I also like to say the only person I've ever met that I agree with fully is myself — and even that is not true all the time... Ever have second thoughts the next day about something? I do.

I also believe that by and large we all share the same values, despite our differing points of view, values like honor, generosity, responsibility, love of family, and love of country, among others.

Hey, I'm an optimist, but I prefer live life that way!

 

[handejector]

I wanted Gary to post this because I thought everyone should know.

It is really more about suppression of gun sites on the net than a 1A issue, IMO.
At any rate, STAY FOCUSED on the topic, and STAY OFF the forbidden topics, period. Plenty of dings available.
from the rules-
The following topics are BANNED on this Board:
Abortion
Religion
Racial issues
Gay rights/homosexuality
General LEO bashing
Political Discussion and Comment
Do NOT participate in discussion of banned topics.

 

[bushmaster1313]

With all due respect counselor, me thinks you have the questions backwards.

The question is not whether the U.S. Constitution prohibits GoDaddy or anyone else from discriminating against gun speech. We should all hope that it does not. I do not want the Constitution telling me what I can't do or what I need to do. Under the Constitution a private individual can discriminate all they want for all the reasons we are not allowed to talk about on this Forum. If I do not want to rent you my spare bedroom, the Constitution can't make me.

Rather, the actual Constitutional issue is whether the Constitution allows a government to pass a law requiring GoDaddy to not discriminate against speech on the basis of its pro-gun content. For example, the United States could pass a law under the Commerce Clause prohibiting a business from discriminating against speech on the basis of content. For the same reason Congress is allowed under the Constitution to pass a law which says that a business which owns at least a certain number of rental housing units cannot discriminate on the basis of certain things.

So the real question is: "Would it pass Constitutional muster for Congress to require GoDaddy to host the AR15 Forum." The issue becomes even thornier if you throw in the hypothetical fact that GoDaddy might claim that hosting the AR15 Forum is against its fundamental religious beliefs.

From my perspective, the less we have the Government telling us what we must do -- the better.