> Speech is ingrained in American culture on both aisles of the political spectrum until last 5-10 years.
Death threats, fraud, harassment, libel, and other harmful forms of speech have had legal consequences for much longer than that.
Death threats, fraud, harassment, libel, and other harmful forms of speech have had legal consequences for much longer than that.
The reason this is a big deal to some is because there was no legal procedure at all. If the site was so obviously guilty as some are claiming, why hasn’t anything been done about it?
Meanwhile, victims can face years of harassment while they wait for a bored cop to get a "yep, they used Tor" conclusion to the case.
Why should that business not be allowed to use their freedom of association to not do business with those folks?
Why is legal action the only acceptable approach to bad actions? Direct action, pressure, and boycots have worked well against injustices in the past; see sit-ins in the American south during the civil rights era as an example.
Sure, freedom of association goes both ways. We decided as a society to add protections for minority groups to prevent that sort of specific abuse. I don't think we'll do the same for Kiwifarms, and I'd argue that's the correct call.
Fraud is theft. Harassment is forcing a non-consenting party to listen. Libel is a civil issue, not criminal.
Come on.
The Constitution doesn't say "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, unless it is super loud late at night near sleeping people." We read that in, because we're not idiots.