First Amendment issue????

[Absalom]

....
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.....

The problem with this discussion is that we really do not know whether that is in fact the issue here.

We'd need full disclosure of the specific content which the AR15 forum was told to remove and did not within GoDaddy's deadline. Only then could we determine whether we are in fact dealing with discrimination on the basis of pro-gun content, or whether this case isn't in fact much narrower and situation-specific.

Given the date of the original infraction, Jan. 8th, and the context of the times, it is easily possible to envision a thread with material which could not pass the Supreme Court's limits last affirmed in the Brandenburg case in 1969, about "shouting fire in a crowded theater" applied to inciting violence.

 

[Beemerguy53]

Okay...I'm going to do my level best not to get dinged while explaining what I think happened here.

As we all know, two weeks ago today, a large group of individuals invaded the US Capitol. They damaged the building, killed a police officer, lost several of their own, terrorized the people inside the building, and shocked the world.

The FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies are investigating this and arresting the individuals involved. There has been a lot of detailed media reporting on the investigation. Some of the suspects who've been arrested acted impulsively and got caught up in the moment. But others were charged with planning their actions well in advance, and going to the Capitol intending to do what they did, and carrying gear and tools to help them do it.

Some suspects were dumb enough to boast on social media about what they were planning to do. Some of them were using their social media accounts to broadcast what they were doing as the assault on the Capitol was underway. Others had used the Private Messaging features on their social media websites to communicate during the attack. Still others proudly boasted of their exploits afterward on their social media accounts.

With their services having been used to facilitate and plan a seditious insurrection against the government, I think a lot of these websites and web hosts have gotten real serious about what is being said on them, and they're scrutinizing posts looking for TOS violations.

I have memberships on many gun-related sites, but this is the only one I really visit. If the AR Forum was being used by some of the people who were involved in the attack on the Capitol, that would probably explain why their web host cut them loose.

Thank heaven for this Forum's Rules!

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

The problem with the "fairness doctrine" was that broadcasters found the easiest solution was to avoid all mention of controversial topics, which is itself a form of censorship.

 

[steelslaver]

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

Now that right there gentlemen is a solid brass FACT

The new American Motto

I only believe and repeat what fits my agenda. Everything else is fake news.

 

[ladder13]

Point proven, thanks.

 

[Bugkiller99]

Gun sites on the web, firearm related videos on YouTube, actually, any social media platform, are subject to being targeted for removal/shutdown.
And in todays era of electronic communications, though not being done by the government, has the same chilling effect on firearms and communications about firearms.

 

[CAJUNLAWYER]

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.

DO not disagree with a word you said. I went back and re-read my post and I quote " But when private individuals stifle unfettered speech although it is their right, it certainly bodes ill for all involved." We are seeing a groundswell of anti gun rhetoric and suppression of contrary views that should scare the snot out of us. They do have a right to do this, but as mentioned earlier it seems as if manipulation by a few is doing a good job of silencing a hugely held viewpoint. I AM indeed worried where this is headed and where it might ultimately wind up.
Think I'll calm down ow and go look at the revolver forums for some purdy pictures of some blue steel revolvers

 

[PatriotX]

If you don't think they were openly promoting violence, you've never been to the GD area of that site.


As far as GoDaddy goes, their business, their rules. Vote with your dollars.

 

[lrrifleman]

Folks, I am sorry, but I am seeing some conceptual confusion here that is a little unnerving.

The Constitution doesn't give anyone rights, it is a blueprint for the structure of government.
The Bill of Rights limits the powers of government and delineates the rights of the people, relative to the authority of government.
As I remember my civics and history classes, it is the Civil Rights Act of 1963 that extends the protections and limitations contained in the Bill of Rights to business, IF it provides a public accommodation.

In many respects, perhaps it's time for some people to take the sage advice of Beaufort T. Justice, "you can think it, you just can't say it!"

 

[biku324]

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."

This doesn't sound unreasonable. I know nothing about the AR15 forum, but another well-known forum I quit several years ago let people get far out of line about what should be done to politicians they didn't like, celebs they didn't like, and people who had differing political opinions. I had a security clearance at the the time and had no wish to have explain to an investigator why I was a member of a forum where those kinds of things were being posted and extensively 'liked.'

We used to be careful about what we said to and about each other - I'd really like that ethic to return, but have no illusion that it will. Like the skulking behavior of a coward throwing a rock from the middle of a crowd, anonymity encourages really negative behavior.

 

[Puller]

I don't frequent the AR15 Forum, but I'm thinking if they really were all that bad they'd be called the M16 Forum. Just saying.

 

[pawngal]

Facebook prohibits the sale of guns and ammo. But I can post all the pictures and descriptions I want . Just don't include the price!
Had a couple of posts pulled before I figured it out.

 

[Absalom]

On a general note: As mentioned before, we don't know the specifics of the content that got the AR15 forum in trouble.

But I have a hunch that it had nothing to do with any discussions of guns, ammo, or issues relating to them.

Based on experience in gun forums that allow "controversial" topics, I've found that folks in the subject matter subforums actually dealing with the guns are helpful, knowledgeable, interesting, and generally polite. Then you go to the general talk subforum, and the same folks let their freak flags fly.

Even here, I suspect most miscreants earn their demerits in the Lounge, not the S&W Antiques subforum

So we don't even know whether the AR15 kerfuffle had anything to do with gun/antigun at all. Corporate control of the "public square" is a serious societal (even if not constitutional) issue, but this may not be a good test case.

 

[LVSteve]

If you don't think they were openly promoting violence, you've never been to the GD area of that site.

Ain't that a fact. As for some of the other chatter seen there, it's not for some of the gentlefolk on this forum, that's for sure. Pointy elbows is the least of it.

I'm sure there are some here who expect GoDaddy to publish the offending posts for examination and critique. All I can say to that is you have a better chance of winning one of those big lottery prizes.

 

[delcrossv]

Folks, I am sorry, but I am seeing some conceptual confusion here that is a little unnerving.

The Constitution doesn't give anyone rights, it is a blueprint for the structure of government.
The Bill of Rights limits the powers of government and delineates the rights of the people, relative to the authority of government.
As I remember my civics and history classes, it is the Civil Rights Act of 1963 that extends the protections and limitations contained in the Bill of Rights to business, IF it provides a public accommodation.

We have a winner right here. It's not a hard argument to make that an ISP cloud farm like AWS is a public accommodation. These days it's very much akin to Ma Bell of yesteryear. A few corporations colluding to exclude a class of customers based on their own criteria. E.G AWS,Apple and Google re: Parler, and now Go Daddy re: Ar-15.com.

Poland seems to be taking a step in the right direction:
Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill (polandin.com)

Now, North Dakota is following suit (although there may be preemption issues with their approach)

Facebook and Twitter could be sued for "censorship" under proposed state law | Ars Technica

 

[Ziggy2525]

We have a winner right here. It's not a hard argument to make that an ISP cloud farm like AWS is a public accommodation. These days it's very much akin to Ma Bell of yesteryear. A few corporations colluding to exclude a class of customers based on their own criteria. E.G AWS,Apple and Google re: Parler, and now Go Daddy re: Ar-15.com.

Poland seems to be taking a step in the right direction:
Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill (polandin.com)

Now, North Dakota is following suit (although there may be preemption issues with their approach)

Facebook and Twitter could be sued for "censorship" under proposed state law | Ars Technica

IMO, Parler seems to have a stronger argument than ar15.com. With Parler it looks like Twitter and Amazon colluded to use their monopoly power to crush a potential Twitter competitor.

With ar15.com and GoDaddy it looks more like a dispute over contractual T&C's.

 

[steelslaver]

So it should be fine for an extremist groups to discuss blowing up buildings and stuff????? How they would do it, possible targets etc. Freedom to discuss how to make effective car bombs etc. Why not allow discussion on how to assemble and use a radiation bomb??

They could claim "Free Speech!" Hey, its protected by the 1st Amendment??? Its a public service! No censorship! Think about it.

" But when private individuals stifle unfettered speech although it is their right, it certainly bodes ill for all involved."

There has to be a line somewhere. Very few are going to agree just where the line is. IMHO if it is your business you should have the FREEDOM to draw YOUR line

 

[pharmer]

Okay........As we all know, two weeks ago today, a large group of individuals invaded the US Capitol. They damaged the building, killed a police officer, lost several of their own, terrorized the people inside the building, and shocked the world.
With their services having been used to facilitate and plan a seditious insurrection against the government, I think a lot of these websites and web hosts have gotten real serious about what is being said on them, and they're scrutinizing posts looking for TOS violations.

Your entire analysis is spot on. Problem is when the "opposition" was doing the exact same things in mostly the Pacific Northwest last year, wasn't a peep out of these "newly appointed social censors." Joe

 

[Beemerguy53]

Your entire analysis is spot on. Problem is when the "opposition" was doing the exact same things in mostly the Pacific Northwest last year, wasn't a peep out of these "newly appointed social censors." Joe

You make a very good point, Joe, about the hypocrisy inherent in how these events were addressed. It ticks me off too...I can't abide double-standards.

The only thing I can figure is that for all the damage and destruction last summer's criminals caused, they weren't trying to overthrow the US Government. Yeah, they vandalized statues and parks, and they looted some commercial buildings, but they never went near the US Capitol, and they never planned to kidnap or kill government officials.

 

[Beemerguy53]

So it should be fine for an extremist groups to discuss blowing up buildings and stuff????? How they would do it, possible targets etc. Freedom to discuss how to make effective car bombs etc. Why not allow discussion on how to assemble and use a radiation bomb??

They could claim "Free Speech!" Hey, its protected by the 1st Amendment??? Its a public service! No censorship! Think about it.

" But when private individuals stifle unfettered speech although it is their right, it certainly bodes ill for all involved."

There has to be a line somewhere. Very few are going to agree just where the line is. IMHO if it is your business you should have the FREEDOM to draw YOUR line

Thanks for pointing out the conundrum that always presents itself in situations like this...just how far does our freedom extend?

I've mentioned on here before that I fly a lot, and go through airport security regularly. When people complain about the screening process, or claim their rights are somehow being violated, I point out to them that the airlines have rights too. The companies who own those airplanes have the right to protect their property, and their customers, by limiting ridership only to folks who've been screened, to make sure they're not carrying weapons or explosives.