Meanwhile the police are downgrading investigation of burglary, and rape prosecutions are at their lowest level ever despite a 30% rise in reports.
Sorry, but I can’t tell from your post why you think that this information about burglary and rape investigations is relevant to this discussion.
I think we’re probably all in agreement that burglaries and rapes should be criminally investigated, but AFAICT that has nothing to do with whether social media companies banning certain user accounts is a freedom of expression issue.
As noted, hate speech is not illegal per se. It can be used as evidence in other hate crimes, such as prosecuting murders as federal civil rights violations. Painting a swastika on a synagogue is illegal because it is vandalism, not because it is hate speech.
The server has been on our Trust & Safety team’s radar for some time due to occasional content that violates our Community Guidelines, including hate speech, glorifying violence, and spreading misinformation. Over the past few months, we have issued multiple warnings to the server admin.
Today, we decided to remove the server and its owner from Discord for continuing to allow hateful and discriminatory content after repeated warnings.
To be clear, we did not ban this server due to financial fraud related to GameStop or other stocks. Discord welcomes a broad variety of personal finance discussions, from investment clubs and day traders to college students and professional financial advisors. We are monitoring this situation and in the event there are allegations of illegal activities, we will cooperate with authorities as appropriate.
What a coincidence! 
But I’m sure big corporations will never use their powers to benefit themselves and their friends. 
Who has ever suggested that they wouldn’t?
This is a tool. It can be used for good or evil. It’s good when white supremacists are banned from spreading white supremacism and genocide advocacy. It’s bad when little guys are banned for doing something morally acceptable that a big corporation finds inconvenient or unprofitable.
It’s bad when you give a big corporation the power to decide what is morally acceptable, because they will inevitably decide that anything inconvenient or unprofitable - or just unpopular - is not morally acceptable.
Then you’re not a big fan of the First Amendment (or maybe you just don’t understand it). Because that’s why big corporations can do this. No one is forced to use these services. They can offer these various services as they see fit (within the law, obviously – meaning no religious, racial, gender, etc., discrimination). Consumers have the power to criticize and even organize boycotts if they find these companies morally unacceptable.
I’m not going over all the arguments again. And you know damn well I’m a fan of the 1st Amendment. See my previous post. What’s it got to do with Twitter?
If you think Twitter shouldn’t be able to determine what speech it allows on its own services framework, then you don’t understand the 1st Amendment.
Every time you hear an announcement from the town crier, that crier literally repeats some message given to him earlier. The act of repeating the message so you can hear it counts as speech. The crier has the right not to announce for people he doesn’t like.
Every time you visit Twitter and look at “someone’s Tweet”, Twitter has to literally read the Tweet back to you. That act of reading the Tweet to you counts as speech. Twitter has the right not to read back messages from people it doesn’t like.
~Max
That seems like pretty twisted logic. Doesn’t Twitter specifically disclaim responsibility for what people say on the platform? It’s not Twitter’s speech.
And does that mean you think my ISP is responsible for everything I read on the Internet?
Yes, operators of interactive computer services have it both ways because the law removes liability. Nevertheless, you aren’t actually visiting anywhere, you are using an interactive computer service which has to repeat the content back to you.
This is the specific law, in the US:
Spoiler (click to expand/collapse)
§ 230. Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material
-
(a) Findings
The Congress finds the following:
-
(1) The rapidly developing array of Internet and other interactive computer services available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources to our citizens.
-
(2) These services offer users a great degree of control over the information that they receive, as well as the potential for even greater control in the future as technology develops.
-
(3) The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.
-
(4) The Internet and other interactive computer services have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of government regulation.
-
(5) Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services.
-
-
(b) Policy
It is the policy of the United States--
-
(1) to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media;
-
(2) to preserve the vibrant and competetive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;
-
(3) to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services;
-
(4) to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children's access to objectionable or inappropriate online material; and
-
(5) to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer.
-
-
(c) Protection for "Good Samaritan" blocking and screening of offensive material
-
(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
-
(2) Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of--
-
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
-
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).1
-
-
-
(d) Obligations of interactive computer service
A provider of interactive computer service shall, at the time of entering an agreement with a customer for the provision of interactive computer service and in a manner deemed appropriate by the provider, notify such customer that parental control protections (such as computer hardware, software, or filtering services) are commercially available that may assist the customer in limiting access to material that is harmful to minors. Such notice shall identify, or provide the customer with access to information identifying, current providers of such protections.
-
(e) Effect on other laws
-
(1) No effect on criminal laws
Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 or 231 of this title, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title 18, or any other Federal criminal statute.
-
(2) No effect on intellectual property law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property.
-
(3) State law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.
-
(4) No effect on communications privacy law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the application of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 or any of the amendments made by such Act, or any similar State law.
-
(5) No effect on sex trafficking law
Nothing in this section (other than subsection (c)(2)(A)) shall be construed to impair or limit--
-
(A) any claim in a civil action brought under section 1595 of title 18, if the conduct underlying the claim constitutes a violation of section 1591 of that title;
-
(B) any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under State law if the conduct underlying the charge would constitute a violation of section 1591 of title 18; or
-
(C) any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under State law if the conduct underlying the charge would constitute a violation of section 2421A of title 18, and promotion or facilitation of prostitution is illegal in the jurisdiction where the defendant's promotion or facilitation of prostitution was targeted.
-
-
-
(f) Definitions
As used in this section:
-
(1) Internet
The term "Internet" means the international computer network of both Federal and non-Federal interoperable packet switched data networks.
-
(2) Interactive computer service
The term "interactive computer service" means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.
-
(3) Information content provider
The term "information content provider" means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.
-
(4) Access software provider
The term "access software provider" means a provider of software (including client or server software), or enabling tools that do any one or more of the following:
-
(A) filter, screen, allow, or disallow content;
-
(B) pick, choose, analyze, or digest content; or
-
(C) transmit, receive, display, forward, cache, search, subset, organize, reorganize, or translate content.
-
-
(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title II, §230, as added Pub. L. 104-104, title V, §509, Feb. 8, 1996, 110 Stat. 137; amended Pub. L. 105-277, div. C, title XIV, §1404(a), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681-739; Pub. L. 115-164, §4(a), Apr. 11, 2018, 132 Stat. 1254.)
1 So in original. Probably should be "subparagraph (A)."
~Max
Actually, I suspect it’s more concerned about liability above of. But maybe that’s the cynic in me?
Seriously, what’s the alternative – to force these social media outlets to give people an account, even if they violate the rules? Because that’s the only option I can see.
Force them to have clearly defined rules, not ‘we can kick you off for any or no reason’, and a transparent appeals process.
Have you asked for bright line rules here?
No set of rules regarding speech, no matter how clearly defined, can result in bright lines. Reality is fuzzy. But yes I am a fan of this board’s fairly clearly defined rules and that there is an appeals process by way of the ATMB forum. And not a fan of mods who handwave away any sloppiness and huge inconsistencies (which is something understandable and sometimes unavoidable) as fuzzy by intent.
Suppose I am a self-employed herald. Upon what basis do you, the government, tell me I can’t arbitrarily refuse to announce messages for someone who I think is a jerk? What gives you the power to remove that provision from my standard contract? What gives you the moral right to force me to physically express opinions of people I don’t like, on pain of fines or imprisonment?
~Max
How is Twitter different than a text message or a mass mailing?
Are you suggesting the text/email services DON’T have the right to their own TOS?
I’m suggesting it’s not their business to censor what you communicate. Ultimately corporations exist in framework of laws that we can change regardless of their so-called TOS.