> Nobody puts him in jail. Nobody takes away his right to make a living or his children or his home
We're way, way past that standard. We're way past when ACLU was defending Nazi's right to speak and were proud of it. Nobody would even think about doing this now. In fact, if you defend a "wrong" client as a lawyer, you may lose your whole career now and become unperson among your peers. If you say a wrong thing publicly, your right to make a living will very likely be taken away, and your physical security would be in serious danger. Your home - if you can keep it while being denied income - surely. But in some countries they government also may lock your bank accounts. Hope you don't have a mortgage and have enough cash stashed to pay your utility bills, because otherwise your house is going bye-bye.
As for jail, no, the US is not there yet. Other countries on the West already very much so, so I wonder for how long that one would hold. After all, the government is already talking about a "clear and present danger" from their political opponents - and this is not a random set of words. This is the legal standard that until 1969 was being used to jail people for saying wrong things. So we may be just one SCOTUS ruling away from going back there. Current SCOTUS may not be willing to do it, but judges are retiring, they are mortal, and then there's talk about court packing... The ice is very thin.
The ACLU would fight for the Nazi marches against the government. These are private companies adjusting their priorities as a result of other people using their free speech rights.
Would they? I don't think they would any more. Any recent examples?
> as a result of other people using their free speech rights.
Running a DDoS is really stretching the definition of "using their free speech rights", I think. But firing you from a job or closing your bank account for saying wrong things is "private companies adjusting their priorities" too. I wonder how long you could make a living if you can't use banking services, or phone services, or internet services - all of which are run by private companies? How long it would be before CPS shows at you door to take your children - because private utility companies refused to serve you and it's not safe for them to be there anymore? You can take that "private companies adjusting their priorities" pretty far. If you think in this situation you still have free speech because you can still stand on a public square and yell into the sky - you definition of freedom of speech is flawed, and honestly, pretty useless in practice.
Nobody is saying the DDoS is free speech. That is a criminal act. The free speech is the people sharing their displeasure with CloudFlare that are using it.
They are not just sharing displeasure. They are also operating the DDoS attacks. Pretending like one exists without the other - nobody can be that naive genuinely.
Maybe you didn't (though I have absolutely no evidence of that) - but people that pushed CloudFlare to drop KF certainly did. And there is evidence that the same people actually planted at least some of the content they used to trigger that decision, too.
It's your choice to shun the providers that support free speech (yes, that means letting people you do not like speak, there was a time once that even ACLU understood that) - but it's not what happened here.
I suggest you submit your evidence to your local FBI office. Since the pressure was partially on Twitter, they should be able to begin arrests for the DDoS attack.
Real people were swatted by real posts on KiwiFarms. No tears will be spilt if these internet tough guys/gals can't afford their hosting bill and thus close down shop. Another group of keyboard heroes face minor consequences for their disgusting actions.
Your view of free speech isn't workable. You tell others to preemptively hamper their own liberty and free speech so these habitual line steppers can preach intolerance.
What you want is the freedom to speak without consequence. That will never exist, nor should it.
This isn't an uncommon view; others have observed that it's becoming unpopular to espouse free speech for all. There's an active pushback against, say, protecting the rights of racists. As an Indian Muslim I don't like what they say, but I realize it's only because of such free speech that people like me can live our lives freely in this country today. There are still a lot of people that hate me and I see it daily on reddit and Twitter.
If you own a billboard, should you respond to letters complaining about the content of the advert?
Free speech isn't anywhere in this equation. If these people wanted to go to a park and march, have at it. They can scream their hate as loud as they'd like.
I won't do business with a company that supports those ideas.
We're way, way past that standard. We're way past when ACLU was defending Nazi's right to speak and were proud of it. Nobody would even think about doing this now. In fact, if you defend a "wrong" client as a lawyer, you may lose your whole career now and become unperson among your peers. If you say a wrong thing publicly, your right to make a living will very likely be taken away, and your physical security would be in serious danger. Your home - if you can keep it while being denied income - surely. But in some countries they government also may lock your bank accounts. Hope you don't have a mortgage and have enough cash stashed to pay your utility bills, because otherwise your house is going bye-bye.
As for jail, no, the US is not there yet. Other countries on the West already very much so, so I wonder for how long that one would hold. After all, the government is already talking about a "clear and present danger" from their political opponents - and this is not a random set of words. This is the legal standard that until 1969 was being used to jail people for saying wrong things. So we may be just one SCOTUS ruling away from going back there. Current SCOTUS may not be willing to do it, but judges are retiring, they are mortal, and then there's talk about court packing... The ice is very thin.