@peterweyand What has a commercial party like an ISP to do with this 'free speech' which applies to the government?

@trinsec @peterweyand ⬆️ This.

The constitution protects ISPs right to disassociate with speech they find objectionable.

@LouisIngenthron @trinsec @peterweyand so if an ISP wants to not host people of Native American descent for example, you must be OK with that then?

Of course your not. There are discrimination laws. The only way not to discriminate is to host everyone, as long as no laws are being broken.

@obi @trinsec @peterweyand Anti-discrimination laws are born of the 14th amendment. Rights must be balanced against each other, and equal protection for things like race is important.

But your claim that "the only way not to discriminate is to host everyone" is nonsense. You can absolutely discriminate legally for many non-protected reasons, the most important of which is opinion. If I don't want Nazis in my business, for example, I have every right to ban them.

@LouisIngenthron @trinsec @peterweyand Ohhhh. So you are of the traditional right wing perspective. So you would side with the bakery owner, who didn't want to put a personalized message on a gay couples cake then?

Or are you just a hypocrite that thinks you should only be able to discriminate legally on issues you find important?

@obi @trinsec @peterweyand Again, rights have to be balanced in that situation.

The baker can't refuse to sell a couple a wedding cake on the basis of their sex, but the couple also cannot compel the baker to customize the cake with a message he finds abhorrent.

@peterweyand valid argument. To me, ISP banning would be the same as the Water Department/Power saying "We aren't going to give him our water supply, did you hear what he said last week? Blacklist him, we don't need his business." @LouisIngenthron @trinsec