They're not, they are protecting their interests and enacting their rights under their agreement with their customers. Surely as you have had legal training you would recognise this?
The UK position is rooted in UK law. The US/UK legal systems are rooted in Common Law. We are free to do and say anything that is not prohibited. The Codified system of Roman/Civil law only permits that which is expressly provided for......half full meets half empty. Subjects have inalienable freedoms not extended to citizens! Slightly ironic but philosophically different.
However UK and US have fair competition rules to ensure no improper restraint of trade. They have no ‘right’ to put people out of business unlawfully. Parler may yet sue but getting re-platformed is the immediate commercial priority and they won’t seek ‘specific performance’ as living under Amazon’s roof is no longer comfortable.
It's the second time you write something I can agree today. From that point we can still disagree on moral integrity and the "burden of proof" notion you so often swipe away.
While I have no argument with your opinion, that wasn't the point I was driving at. Legality attempts to reflect the moral values of the relevent society, country etc. Anyone throwing horseshit from a soapbox shouldn't be surprised if they're pelted with cabbages but not necessarily locked up for it.
Would you defend someone's right to say quite literally anything in the name of free speech? I used to quote this myself but, while I understand the principle, it is too open to abuse to be applied without caveat.
There's always caveats - hate speech and incitement being two of them. I'm comfortable with that, even if it means we have to be on our guard to ensure that unacceptable lines aren't crossed.
Speakers’ Corner? Yes, you can gibber all you like provided you stay within the criminal law. If you slander or libel someone civil remedies are available.
Mix my french allied stupidity and my german stubborn rigor and you have it ! The reality is less exiting..
My observation is that it looks off beam but the legal position in the US? Not qualified to comment. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/09/antitrust-law.asp It will probably end up as a spat about who is harming whom with what intent.
I think you will find the Platform Holder has ultimate sanction over content and if it chooses to ditch Parler so be it Parler is at liberty to create its own platform for its own content - no massive barriers to entry except discover ability
