So in the discussion over whether internet companies can deny hosting to Nazis (such as here and here), I admit I see both sides. I understand the concerns that this grants too much discretionary power to large establishments about what speech is allowed on the internet, and I understand that “Nazis marching in the streets with torches and the organizing thereof is different and inimical to civil society.”
My question is, can anyone offer an argument for why private companies should get to choose this?
Like on the anti-Nazi side, everything they say makes a case for why it should just be illegal to host this violent, reactionary rhetoric.
And on the pro-free-speech side, everything they say makes a case for why no gatekeeper is pure enough to decide who does and doesn’t get to speak.
But what’s the logic for “maybe Nazis get to organize online, maybe they don’t, and that decision should be up to the rich people who control internet companies?”
It goes like this:
“Nazis can do whatever they want on their own time but this is my server that I’ve purchased with my money so therefore it’s me that gets to decide what pages are hosted on it.”
It becomes significantly more cloudy when we get to registrars like godaddy. They are a government-monopoly-by-proxy through ICANN.
Limited Liability Corporations are government constructs that receive very powerful special protections (it’s in the name), and thus I don’t see it as the same as a personal server.