I'm not aware phone books being regulated as utilities.
The point i'm making is not : "Do you sympathize with 'bad guys'?"
it's more: "Would you want whats happening to 'bad guys' to happen to you?".
The important line that is being crossed here is that you can get banned from Twitter/Facebook/Google/whomever for saying something that is not illegal but is in the opinion of the company objectionable.
No utility has the power to disconnect me if I do something they think is objectionable with their service. And that goes to the heart of what people seem to want from "regulating as a utility" (a phrase that is terrifying in its vagueness) - they want freedom to voice unpopular opinions and let those who agree, agree.
But, I feel under no threat of being disconnected by my water provider because /they think/ that I am harassing someone.
For Jones in particular, I believe the appropriate channels of response are for the person being harassed to: (1) Sue him (2) Respond clearly.
The tech majors, who have mounting leaked evidence that their management is politically active in the workplace, should not be arbitrating what a publisher does. If they do, then they are publishers themselves, in which case they should be regulated differently and their status as publishers made very public.
Then it seems very bad faith for you to be using him as an example.
"For Jones in particular, I believe the appropriate channels of response are for the person being harassed to: (1) Sue him (2) Respond clearly."
This is simply not true. Further, if you're Twitter, and you have users that are harassing other users, that makes those users less wanting to use your platform. And you have other people that catch wind that Twitter is doing nothing about harassment, and now very few people want to use Twitter.
"The tech majors, who have mounting leaked evidence that their management is politically active in the workplace"
[Citation Needed]
"If they do, then they are publishers themselves, in which case they should be regulated differently and their status as publishers made very public."
I disagree. Asking someone to leave who is harassing other users is not causing themselves to be publishers.
That’s simply not true.
In fact it specifically mentions anonymous communications in a variety of forms.
Either (a) communicates with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, or by telegraph, mail or any other form of written communication, in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm; or (b) causes a communication to be initiated by mechanical or electronic means or otherwise with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, or by telegraph, mail or any other form of written communication, in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm; or Makes a telephone call, whether or not a conversation ensues, with no purpose of legitimate communication;...
I can only recommend a more in-depth reading for you. At the very least you owe it to yourself to have basic knowledge of the laws in question before you go about declaring what’s legal and illegal.
I really don’t believe just because Twitter is popular it’s suddenly mandatory that it host any and all content. If hacker news became as popular as twitter could the government suddenly start compelling HN to stop censoring off topic conversation and host any and all posts?
Twitter was created by people to serve a certain purpose and for certain conversations and they are within their rights to control the content they host on their machines and on their site.
Or, let's say on the other hand the Koch brothers buy it and again, direct employees who have not quit to ban all non-conservative posters.
Would that be okay because they don't owe it to anyone to be a medium for everyone?
Someone else could create a more neutral site since there’d certainly be a void to fill.
On paper this is true, but network effects mean you won't be able to interact with the general public UNLESS the general public also moves to your platform as well, which is fairly unlikely.