Corporations have rights. Quite literally. They are legal entities. We aren’t required to use their services. They aren’t required to provide said services.
"In the UK, Article 10 of the 1998 Human Rights Act protects our right to freedom of expression: Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
In this case public authority is the government.
Governments have an obligation to prohibit hate speech and incitement. These are dangerous. Restrictions can also be justified if they protect specific public interest or the rights and reputations of others. People imposing the restrictions (whether they are governments, employers or anyone else) must be able to demonstrate the need for them, and they must be proportionate.
The choice for Cloudflare or any company that operates in the jurisdiction of the government enacting the law is to obey the law or not do business in that governments jurisdiction. It seems like that’s exactly what Cloudflare is suggesting they will do if the government tries to force them to adhere to said law. That’s their right as a company.
I’m not saying cloudflare is a good company. My argument isn’t that pulling out of the country is a good idea.
My main concern and the reason that I responded to your comment in the first place was because you tried to make this about freedom of speech, and as it pertains to this discussion I’m not really sure what your argument is except that your idea of free speech is predicated on the idea that the freedom of the people and their speech should in some way negate the freedom of the company.
The threat of legal action on Cloudflare’s part seems to be to do with the fine that the government is trying to force on them for refusing to agree to obey the newly enacted law. It’s normal for corporations to fight civil penalties like this.
Your argument doesn’t seem to be that it costs tax dollars (it does), or that it’s unfair because you or I wouldn’t have the same opportunity due to monetary limitations to legally fight the government. Or even that if you or I didn’t agree with the law we couldn’t just up sticks and leave the country. Your argument seems to be that somehow, by standing up for the rights they do have, this company is somehow blocking free speech? I’m asking because I still am not sure I understand.
I’m not arguing against free speech here. Granted I also didn’t downvote these comments.
The main problem is that the original comment and subsequent comments don’t explain what the alternative is. It isn’t just the US that has such laws (as I tried to demonstrate by posting an alternative law from the UK.
The thing is, generally the rights of an individual generally stop where the rights of another individual start and vice versa.
The original comment doesn’t even explain what part of either the ruling by the country in question or the threat of legal action on the part of Cloudflare they disagree with, nor did they explain how that is in any way related to free speech.
There exist whole countries that have internet that doesn’t use Cloudflare’s services. Cloudflare is a big player in the DNS space but they aren’t the end all be all of the internet.
If the concern is that Cloudflare’s threat to leave the country will amount to censoring free speech because websites won’t be available due to the lack of Cloudflare services, that’s a problem with the infrastructure of the country in question and their ability to provide DNS blocking as a service (forcing them to rely on a business that is provides said services in exchange for money).
That same money can be used to stand up a Cloudflare alternative.
Reliance on tech corporations is not an excuse to claim free speech is being detrimentally affected by censorship.
Even if it was, the least the original commenter could have done was offered alternative solutions.