7 ms·

Fundamental right to web hosting?

by milesdyson_phd 5y ago

huibv 5y ago
A web hosting that guarantees that the fundamental right to free speech can be exercised over the internet.
- Bootvis 5y ago
  The speech isn't the issue here. The problem is the collecting of data on third persons. You might believe these providers looked through their ToS in search for a reason but I hope you agree with me that there is a difference between freedom of expression and data collection.
msla 5y ago
More charitable interpretation: The Internet is the public square these days. Imagine if your town's public spaces were all owned by private businesses and you couldn't use them if those private businesses didn't like your message, skin color, gender, ethnicity, religion, or face. That's what I'm afraid of: The enclosure and destruction of the only place modern people have to be heard. I'm not proposing a solution. There won't be a very easy solution.
- yardie 5y ago
  > Imagine if your town's public spaces were all owned by private businesses and you couldn't use them if those private businesses didn't like your message, skin color, gender, ethnicity, religion, or face. It's called the mall and that is basically the rule. You can be asked to leave for no reason at all or be hit with a trespassing charge. A public square is actually public, owned by the public, occupied by the public.
  - wizzwizz4 5y ago
    Wasn't there a rule that malls should be counted as public spaces? (Or am I thinking of a different country?)
    - Natsu 5y ago
      You're probably thinking of Pruneyard, I linked it just above you.
  - Natsu 5y ago
    > It's called the mall and that is basically the rule. That depends on the state: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...
  - msla 5y ago
    > It's called the mall and that is basically the rule. Depends on the state: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R... > A state can prohibit the private owner of a shopping center from using state trespass law to exclude peaceful expressive activity in the open areas of the shopping center. [snip] > This holding was possible because California's constitution contains an affirmative right of free speech which has been liberally construed by the Supreme Court of California, while the federal constitution's First Amendment contains only a negative command to Congress to not abridge the freedom of speech. This distinction was significant because the U.S. Supreme Court had already held that under the federal First Amendment, there was no implied right of free speech within a private shopping center. However, there's further limits to what a private company can do to free speech: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama > Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946), was a case decided by the US Supreme Court, which ruled that a state trespassing statute could not be used to prevent the distribution of religious materials on a town's sidewalk even though the sidewalk was part of a privately-owned company town. [snip] > In its conclusion, the Court stated that it was essentially weighing the rights of property owners against the rights of citizens to enjoy freedom of press and religion. The Court noted that the rights of citizens under the Bill of Rights occupy a preferred position. Accordingly, the Court held that the property rights of a private entity are not sufficient to justify the restriction of a community of citizens' fundamental rights and liberties.
  - ben_w 5y ago
    @mlsa wrote "all", not just the most dominant one. Add every park and every high street on top of the malls.
jandrese 5y ago
Web hosting is so cheap it's practically already free. If you just want to toss up a webpage there are a number of providers that will do it for free. Choose a cheap domain name and your total costs are a few bucks a year unless it somehow becomes exceptionally popular.
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  As a point of order, registrars are also refusing service. If you want a simple, non-controversial, non scalable website, yes, hosting one solo is really easy. As soon as you have something that you plan to scale it becomes nearly impossible to 'go it alone'.
dredmorbius 5y ago
Internet access is proposed as a universal human right by notable authorities and organisations. E.g., https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2016/11/07/the-internet-as-a-human-right/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2016/11/07/the-inter...

Fundamental right to web hosting?

huibv 5y ago

A web hosting that guarantees that the fundamental right to free speech can be exercised over the internet.

Bootvis 5y ago
The speech isn't the issue here. The problem is the collecting of data on third persons. You might believe these providers looked through their ToS in search for a reason but I hope you agree with me that there is a difference between freedom of expression and data collection.

msla 5y ago

More charitable interpretation: The Internet is the public square these days. Imagine if your town's public spaces were all owned by private businesses and you couldn't use them if those private businesses didn't like your message, skin color, gender, ethnicity, religion, or face. That's what I'm afraid of: The enclosure and destruction of the only place modern people have to be heard. I'm not proposing a solution. There won't be a very easy solution.

yardie 5y ago
> Imagine if your town's public spaces were all owned by private businesses and you couldn't use them if those private businesses didn't like your message, skin color, gender, ethnicity, religion, or face. It's called the mall and that is basically the rule. You can be asked to leave for no reason at all or be hit with a trespassing charge. A public square is actually public, owned by the public, occupied by the public.
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  Wasn't there a rule that malls should be counted as public spaces? (Or am I thinking of a different country?)
  - Natsu 5y ago
    You're probably thinking of Pruneyard, I linked it just above you.
- Natsu 5y ago
  > It's called the mall and that is basically the rule. That depends on the state: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...
- msla 5y ago
  > It's called the mall and that is basically the rule. Depends on the state: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R... > A state can prohibit the private owner of a shopping center from using state trespass law to exclude peaceful expressive activity in the open areas of the shopping center. [snip] > This holding was possible because California's constitution contains an affirmative right of free speech which has been liberally construed by the Supreme Court of California, while the federal constitution's First Amendment contains only a negative command to Congress to not abridge the freedom of speech. This distinction was significant because the U.S. Supreme Court had already held that under the federal First Amendment, there was no implied right of free speech within a private shopping center. However, there's further limits to what a private company can do to free speech: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama > Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946), was a case decided by the US Supreme Court, which ruled that a state trespassing statute could not be used to prevent the distribution of religious materials on a town's sidewalk even though the sidewalk was part of a privately-owned company town. [snip] > In its conclusion, the Court stated that it was essentially weighing the rights of property owners against the rights of citizens to enjoy freedom of press and religion. The Court noted that the rights of citizens under the Bill of Rights occupy a preferred position. Accordingly, the Court held that the property rights of a private entity are not sufficient to justify the restriction of a community of citizens' fundamental rights and liberties.
- ben_w 5y ago
  @mlsa wrote "all", not just the most dominant one. Add every park and every high street on top of the malls.

jandrese 5y ago

Web hosting is so cheap it's practically already free. If you just want to toss up a webpage there are a number of providers that will do it for free. Choose a cheap domain name and your total costs are a few bucks a year unless it somehow becomes exceptionally popular.

BitwiseFool 5y ago
As a point of order, registrars are also refusing service. If you want a simple, non-controversial, non scalable website, yes, hosting one solo is really easy. As soon as you have something that you plan to scale it becomes nearly impossible to 'go it alone'.

dredmorbius 5y ago

Internet access is proposed as a universal human right by notable authorities and organisations. E.g., https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2016/11/07/the-internet-as-a-human-right/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2016/11/07/the-inter...