I am not american but... Can not dailystormer sue the google

Sadly that's not how this amendment works
It's not radical free speech

>>139922396
The only people who are obligated to uphold the first amendment are those in public, not private, services.

>>139922396
Nah, Google is a private company and has the right to censor stuff. That's why /pol/ has been trying to cut off their ad revenue instead.

not unless big tech gets regulated like a public utility, and honestly these organizations are TRUSTs and need to be sized down.

>>139922396
>I am not american
The bill of rights protects the people from the government not from other people. However, it is usually in an organization's business to respect free speech since it is kind of a cultural thing. Google has just gotten so big people can't really boycott them because everything else isn't as good. The government can look into whether Google is a monopoly though.

>>139922396
No. They can't sue the other 5 or so guys that shut them down either.

>>139922535
Except bakeries

>>139922535
>>139922566
Where is the public domain in the internet? If you have no place to speak in the internet, they are limiting your freedom, it's worrying because it is America.

They should sue google, It's better than stay in silence sounding like you're guilty or running looking cowards.

>>139922928
Different amendment. Should just bake them a salty cake. Oops!

>>139922997
Yeah man, just sue the biggest company on the planet or you're a pussy.
You're a fucking idiot. There is literally nothing they can sue for, everything Google did is technically within the law. The best they can do is create their own services and try to change the law.

>>139922858
>The bill of rights protects the people from the government not from other people.

These big companies they have ties with the government. Does it count?

>>139922864
Nice time digits

>>139923330
It could but if we lose we will look bad
If we don't Sue It's supposed/unclear

>>139923308
>The best they can do is create their own services and try to change the law.

What you are saying is more hard than sue and I still believe they can not accept this in silence, they need try something.

>>139923330
No. Not unless you could prove they were working on behalf of government officials. Seems obvious, but a court would need evidence.

>>139923695
What I'm saying would actually work. Even if the case was winnable it would take years to finish, huge companies can extend shit like this indefinitely until the opponent is bankrupt.
Besides, google is the least of their problems right now, basically every infrastructure stage of the internet that's needed to host a website has censored them.
Hosts, registrars, ddos protection, fucking DNS servers and according to Weev even TOR is somehow throttling them.
Google is only one of their problems (albeit the one that stole their URL, but they'll get that back 60 days it was taken I think).

I mean so far:
dailystormer.com
dailystormer.com (2nd time)
dailystormer.ru
dailystormer.wang
punishedstormer.com
dailystormer.al

have all been shut down. I think the last one was even worse too, supposedly the host was completely fine with them but it was taken all the way to the owner of .al who decided to get rid of them.

>>139924651
That's the problem, they are running like interpol fugitives. they need just send the message "Hey, we did nothing wrong". And they need to come to public to make this.

>>139925405
They ARE sending the "We did nothing wrong, we made jokes and you haven't even banned pedo advocates" message.
They HAVE to run because everywhere they go gets banned.

I don't think Molymeme has even covered it, saying "we're not guilty" won't change shit if even he won't cover the largest steps in censorship since the USSR.

Free speech only has to do with government and public. Not private sector. Ironically I agree with that because its sort of anti freedom to impose that on private companies.

>>139925405
White nationalists need to start building their own infrastructure, especially online. You cannot, and should not, rely on google to allow you to speak freely. They don't give a shit. I have the sinking suspicion that Cantwell was targeted at the unite the right rally because he was talking about helping with these types of efforts. Anyway, there needs to be a webhosting platform, built from the ground up, or you will always be targeted.

Let us assume that we went the route of suing. The defence wouldn't even need to provide a legal arguement. They could simply paint the dailystormer, or any other such outlet, as evil nazis and share slides of articles and forum posts in court. The jury wouldn't even bother with the facts of the case. You likely won't have much public support either, if you try to reach out. Should you try this approach, Google has the means to propagandize against you with their own platform, assuming they have no connections in the media, which we can safely assume they do.

>>139923308
It wasn't just Google, it was the ICANN name registry. Google still is just a website. Imagine the uproar from Goolag if ICANN banned them off of the internet.

>>139922396
Nope, they can refuse services just like the bakery can refuse services to the faggots who want the marriage cake.

>>139926641
The Obama administration sold/transferred the registry part of the internet to ICANN/Network Solutiins. It looked like a way to silence people from criticizing the kikes. 4chan is next, what will we do about it? Net Neutrality is supposed to stop somethiNguyen like this from happening. It would be as if you could only get mail delivered from the US Mail service, but being in private hands, they stopped you from mailing a letter or receiving one. Or the electric company turned off your heat. It's like niggers being able to eat in a restaurant. The courts decided you have to serve them whether you want to or not. Before that ruling, the niggers were arrested for tresspassing if a restaurant owner told them to gtfo.

>>139922503
Retard alert

>>139926707
A good lawyer would call out an objection for being irrelevant to the matters of the case. It's not about Google, they were chosen because they have no mention of political content in their terms of service. It's about being denied a Web address. People, unless you are retarded, or a troll, understand that they are being denied a Web address.

File: Tor Project.jpg (102KB, 1200x600px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 1200x600px

>>139922396
The "government" doesn't censor the internet. Major corporations with giant lobbying arms and billions of dollars in government subsidies do that for them. Totally different. You're imagining things go back to sleep. YAAAAAWWWWNNNN...

>>139922396
The 1st amendment is only a guarantee that one cannot be arrested for merely speaking (incriminating words notwithstanding - you _can_ say things that will trigger an investigation if you are in the wrong place and with the wrong people). For better or worse, it does not mean whatever a person says under this pretense is guaranteed to be heard.

File: 1497621613636.jpg (77KB, 625x416px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 625x416px

>>139922503
Never post again croissant

>>139922396
Do you not understand the difference between the governmebt and a company?

>>139923100
>Different amendment.

Yeah I still don't get that one. It went against the religion of those who owned the bakery, they had a religious and moral objection to a homosexual marriage, I'm still not 100% on what amendment to the constitution overrules their right to refuse business on religious grounds.

Fuck I wish we still lived in the days where you could refuse service to anyone for any reason. That should be your right in the service industry anyway, they were being commissioned for a custom order. No matter the reason, why did the courts have to step into the situation in the first place? Furthermore, why the fuck did the faggots have to go to a bakery they knew had valid personal reasons to dislike even the idea of having the slightest hand in their marriage? How the fuck are the faggots not guilty of barratry?

>>139922396
Maybe:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama

>In its conclusion, the Court stated that it was essentially using a balancing test, weighing the rights of property owners against the rights of citizens to enjoy freedom of press and religion. The Court noted, however, that the latter 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.

It really depends on the kind of people we have in the Supreme Court.

>>139924651
>according to Weev even TOR is somehow throttling them
But not throttling the pedos...SAD!

>>139928441
>understand that they are being denied a Web address.
False. They are being denied a DOMAIN NAME, not a DOMAIN.
They are being denied DAILYSTORMER.COM, not 123.456.789.0

>>139922396


If people can be sued for not backing a cake for faggots...


then surely


Google can be sued for not baking a cake for Daily stormer

>>139928874
So, if the US Mail system were privatized, would you support them refusing to send or receive mail to certain addresses, for purely the reason that the company Ceo didn't like the opinions being expressed? This is basically what happened. Imagine the alt-right took over ICANN and they banned reddit, would you say that is OK because it's a private company doing the banning? This is precident-setting. Some day the shoe may be on the other foot.

>>139929373
Ok, thanks for correction.

>>139929400
well we had precedent set with that band with hatespeech = freespeech and technically arent they discriminating based on race? white people are a race which is the core of this sooo.

>>139929090
I find it repulsive that the government can demand private businesses serve anyone and everyone. I don't care if a business I went in to kicked me out because I am Mexican. It should be their right to refuse to serve someone for any reason. The free market would fix it anyway.

>>139922396
GOOGLE IS A PRIVATE COMPANY THAT CAN PERMIT OR BAN WHATEVER SPEECH THEY LIKE

fucking retards, learn that freedom of speech applies to goverment only, private entities can do whatever they like

>>139929918
t. purge apologist
it is different when a supranational monopoly does it

>>139922503
Wouldn't radical free speech made it illegal for moderators to remove posts or ban users, and thus destroy basically every website?

>>139929918
>freedom of speech applies to goverment only, private entities can do whatever they like
That is false.

>>139929918
You aren't wrong but freedom of speech is being outsourced to private companies, besides, the government can't censor them as much as Google can.

>>139929918
It's only okay when they do it. You have to bake the cake for the gays and let Muslims on the plane. Tactical libertarianism. Shitlibs become ancaps when they run the corporation.

>>139929918
Nope. When courts ruled you had to beak a cake for faggots that argument went out the fucking window.

>>139930910
My hatred for the leftist scum intensified after this episode. They will literally force a baker to bake a cake for homosexuals, but immediately switch their "principles" when their is a supranational monopoly on domain name registration, and actually even worse, the ICANN took their name and made it invalid. There are dozens of bakeries that could have baked the homosexuals a cake, but only one domain name registry. This is a watershed moment of corporate censorship. Trump should step in, or every time some leftist scumbag does his/her victimhood song and dance, the censorship will only get worse. The whole thing about some fat bitch paid Antifa protestor getting mocked is bullshit. This was in the works, and they certainly didn't ban BLM after they killed the Bosnian guy during a riot.

>>139930676
As much as the government coordinates with mass media, Silicon Valley, and the SPLC/ADL hate industrial complex I think that is a distinction without a difference.

https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/
http://archive.is/joErD

File: 1503648340272.jpg (31KB, 640x427px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 640x427px

>>139922396

The first amendment is applied to the government, not private businesses. They might be able to sue for some sort of breach of contract, but not for breaking any US laws.

File: Antifa Domestic Terror.jpg (143KB, 649x845px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 649x845px

>>139931686
That is because the left has only one principle, victory. The concept of good faith doesn't exist for them because respect for their opponent is contrary to that one iron principle. The conservative concept of "losing with dignity" is incoherent to leftism. Some spots of hope exist though.


http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2017/08/21/how-the-jews-won-the-battle-of-charlottesville/
http://archive.is/T7LAt

File: Samuel T Francis.jpg (25KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 480x480px

>>139931795
Right wingers may love capitalism, but "capitalists" don't love you back. Big business and big government are two sides of the same coin.

>>139922396
The First Amendment is only enforceable against government actors, not private actors, like Google.

>>139922396

they should be able to sue the federal government for not protecting their speech, however the way that the 1st amendment has been interpreted vs how the founders intended it has always been a bit of a grey area.

particularly when it comes to the internet and private property (private enterprise). The Federal Government should actually step in on Google and stop them from trying to wipe people off the internet. they set a very bad precedent and i think they're seeing how far they can take it. the government doesn't seem to care, or at least hasn't made any overt moves to squash this shit.

>>139929411
is there any reason that a competitor to ICANN can't come about?

>>139922396

That's why Google isn't part of the government.

This was done on purpose, and has progressed according to keikaku.

>>139932431
>>139931862

The right to refuse service and laws/precedent have nothing to do with the 1st amendment. We already know stormfront is protected by law for their point of view so why bring it up

>>139931862
Wrong, faggot. >>139929212

>>139932431
>>139932952
Also, what ever happened to "you didn't build that?"

>>139922396

The 1st Amendment only protects you from the Government. And unfortunately for the Daily Stormer, their webhosting service was not the Government.

>>139932440

Cost of entry is a powerful thing.

In theory I "could" try and start my own electrical power company. In practice the existing company that owns all the existing infrastructure would crush me like a bug. Unless of Course I had a few hundred billion dollars handy and an investor base willing to defer profits for the next 80 years while I build my own competing power grid.

>>139933211
>The 1st Amendment only protects you from the Government.
wrong, see above

>>139930298
Worth it, IMO.

File: re.jpg (8KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 225x225px

>>139922503
stupid fucking french fry faglette

it's just the free market goy ;) just gonna have to make your own registrar if you want to be hateful

>>139922503
You have a right to free speech, not "some" free speech, stupid baguette. Otherwise you don't have a right to free speech at all.

>>139933211
ICANN is a supranational monopoly in violation of US net neutrality laws. It would be as if mail service were handed over to a foreign entity and they said you can neither receive nor send any mail. Totally different situation. Stormfront has actually been around longer than they have.

>>139933381
People who don't understand business think of the world through the lens of a magical market that rewards efficacy instead of keeping the lights on. To business the most important thing isn't profit necessarily, but having enough money to be open next quarter. Amazon has never once turned a profit, but instead is a giant lending scam. Economies of scale gives an incredible first mover advantage which means that natural monopolies emerge because new entrants have no means to effectively compete. Additionally existing businesses can run a loss to outcompete a newcomer. Networking is also important as business requires a diverse array of experts to be at the disposal of the entrepreneur. Of key interest to the networker is being socially effective which usually means having no publicly known views outside of the mainstream. Feminism and LGBT rights are good branding decisions.

These are all structural challenges that prevent new entrants into the market and encourage social conformity. Add to this extremist views and watch how necessary services in any business, such as ddos protection or legal assistance, refuse to do business with you.

>>139933644
No cloudflare for you, but who would try to illegally ddos you anyway? Also you let's delist you from major search engines. Don't worry this isn't real censorship because the government didn't do it.

>>139934161
oops, looks like you're going to have to make your own ISP now too. the free market will sort this out, don't worry ;+[)

>>139929090
>why the fuck did the faggots have to go to a bakery they knew had valid personal reasons to dislike even the idea of having the slightest hand in their marriage?

pretty much to sue so they'd be able to make a political statement and get some money out of it. There are lots of shitty people out there who abuse the court system for an easy payday
Also you still are allowed to refuse service in most states, as long as you don't admit that you're refusing them because they are one of the "protected classes"

>>139934319
>;+[)
redditor detected

>>139934487
>There are lots of shitty people out there who abuse the court system for an easy payday

Barratry should be a felony offense.

>>139934520
you've found me out. is this the part where i get the crap hacked out of me ?? !

File: Managerial Revolution Orwell.jpg (54KB, 658x906px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 658x906px

For those who are interested in this issue beyond the addressing these things as isolated incidents look up the Managerial Revolution.

>>139933981

Yep, and Capitalism, far from being a system that rewards innovation and efficacy is a system that rewards size.

The only time a major economic power gets taken out in Capitalism is if it gets slow and stupid. An existing mass of capital that is aware will destroy any potential competition long before it becomes a threat.

Which is why I am going to be watching Amazon's forray into the Grocery Market via its acquisition of Whole Foods with rapt attention. Kroger, Food Lion, Giant, Safeway and Wal-Mart view this the same way the Christians viewed the Muslims taking Jerusalem. They are absolutely going to put aside their myriad differences and try and destroy Amazon's invasion of their business sphere.

Though unlike a plucky start up, this will be more a full blown scorched earth crusade between great powers. One I honestly think Amazon will lose in the end.

>>139934641

The Courts are actually beginning to crack down on this. Lawyers and Clients who find their hands caught in the cookie jar are starting to find themselves liable to punitive judgements when the Court ultimately rules in favor of the Defense.

There have been a bunch of recent cases, mainly in the intellectual properties sphere, where entire law firms who pushed questionable lawsuits not only lost their case, but also found themselves being held civilly liable in the final judgement for the people they were suing to extract compensation from them. The lawyers themselves. Not their clients.

>>139935917

It's a start. A little more, and it might just be a good start.

>>139935917

*add, this is rapidly becoming a standard in the federal circuit. Plaintiffs who fail to prove their case on the merits or offer a compelling legal argument to advance to trial not only lose their case in the dismissal, but are then ordered to pay attorneys fee and punitive compensation to the defendent.

The courts are attempting to raise the consequences for losing on people who sue. You don't just get to walk away. A failed lawsuit carries with it not just your wasted time, but also civilly actionable punishments.

Google is a private company, it can do what it wants.

The problem is that there are only a handful of domain registrars, so when domain registrars start policing the content of the websites whose domains they register, that creates a free speech problem.

We need to put DNS back in the hands of the public, not in the hands of private companies with agendas.

File: Snoop Nod.gif (596KB, 164x131px) Image search: [Google]

596KB, 164x131px

>>139935426
It's important to remember that Capitalism is a new idea. Commerce has existed as long as civilization, but the elevation of commerce as a higher calling and theoretical pursuit only occurred in the last 250 years. Prior to the market revolution most people did commerce primarily in the form of the barter of goods and services to people they had known their whole lives.

While I think something is to be said for disruptive innovation in capitalism that itself is the triumph of mediocrity. Ironically enough any business should be trying to screw themselves if they care about the long term, but very few do.