Judge denies Parler an injunction to force AWS to host the antisocial network for internet outcasts
- Reference: 1611272345
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2021/01/21/parler_aws_injunction/
- Source link:
"The Court rejects any suggestion that the public interest favors requiring AWS to host the incendiary speech that the record shows some of Parler’s users have engaged in," wrote Judge Barbara Rothstein in Thursday's ruling
[1]PDF
. "At this stage, on the showing made thus far, neither the public interest nor the balance of equities favors granting an injunction in this case."[2]
Parler [3]sought the temporary restraining order [4]after Amazon refused to host its servers, arguing that the app biz was "unable to effectively identify and remove content that encourages or incites violence against others."
This is in the context of armed and violent insurrectionists, egged on by Donald Trump, [5]storming the Capitol earlier this month to temporarily stop the confirmation of then-President-elect Joe Biden's November election win. Judging from posts shared on Parler, it was seen as a nexus of online efforts to coordinate the deadly intrusion, and Amazon pulled the plug in response.
[6]
That move came after Google and Apple both banned the app from its online souks.
Pirate Bay co-founder criticises Parler for its lack of resilience [7]READ MORE
Judge Rothstein noted that while Parler didn't deny hosting the hateful content, it blamed it all on a sharp spike in users leading to a breakdown of the content moderating systems the site claims to use.
Parler claimed AWS was acting in breach of US antitrust law by deliberately killing off one of Twitter's rivals to help the latter platform. The judge said the evidence for such claimed was "dwindlingly slight," and that it "submitted no evidence that AWS and Twitter acted together intentionally — or even at all — in restraint of trade."
Parler also claimed Amazon had committed breach of contract by shutting it down within hours of complaints being made, rather than giving it 30 days to tackle the posts Amazon had a problem with. Judge Rothstein noted that AWS's terms and conditions allow for termination “immediately upon notice,” which obviates Parler's claim.
Parler is free to appeal the ruling, though the judge reckoned such action would have little chance of success unless the lawyers for the site find new legal arguments.
[8]
In the meantime Parler is back online in a limited way, mainly just showing off a home screen and no actual functionality, as it struggles to find anyone willing to host its digital bile. ®
Get our [9]Tech Resources
[1] https://regmedia.co.uk/2021/01/21/parler.pdf
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_datacentre/cloud&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2YApb5k9KaoO5Je0K@sYcQgAAAM4&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/11/parler_sues_aws/
[4] https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/11/trump_social_media/
[5] https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/06/us_congress_trump_stormed/
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_datacentre/cloud&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YApb5k9KaoO5Je0K@sYcQgAAAM4&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/14/pirate_bay_cofounder_criticises_parler/
[8] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_datacentre/cloud&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YApb5k9KaoO5Je0K@sYcQgAAAM4&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[9] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: Seems like Parler don't know how private companies work
Upvote!
"...little chance of success unless the lawyers for the site find new legal arguments"
Because 'The big, bad man is penalizing us for that stuff we did. Waah!' just doesn't cut it once you are in court.
Re: Seems like Parler don't know how private companies work
I'm surprised they didn't claim AWS did it on the orders of the Lizard People.
Having skimmed through their complaint and Amazon's response, this looked like a foregone conclusion. They didn't have a leg to stand on.
As far as censorship, it's no more censorship than if a theater chain (if any survive the pandemic) refused to show X-Rated movies.
Censorship by Private Companies
Is OK as long as we do not like the content being censored. It would of course be truly evil that they censored some other group that incited illegal acts that we liked. E.g. Extinction rebellion, BLM, Arab Spring, US Founding Fathers.
For all its faults, the law gives people a right to state their case and is fairly transparent. Not so with corporate decision making. Any censorship needs to be done by due process. And then only very rarely.
Amazon was not supporting Parlor in the sense of Facebook. They were merely providing server infrastructure. Content was none of their business. People that support Amazon would probably support cutting other infrastructure providers off the internet entirely if they did not agree with them. It is a bit like a city banning someone from talking in any public or private space within its walls and not calling that censorship.
Politically, this makes a martyr out of Parler. It will end up being hosted somewhere, perhaps in Russia. And this has been great publicity for them.
Given their style and history
Maybe they will storm the court
Neanderthals all.
Not all countries are founded on socialist beliefs
It is disappointing that this site is usually just another liberal mouthpiece. For people who supposedly deal in facts there's an abundance of rabid anti-conservatism based on emotion alone. Apparently it's confusing to you that some people believe it's not the government's place to provide its population with goods and services.
You seem to be perfectly happy with censorship as long as it isn't a viewpoint you support. Those people shouldn't be allowed to say what they say because you have a differing opinion! Stifle them at once! Remove all platforms that dare give them an internet connection!
"First they came for the Communists..."
Anonymous because hey, you clearly support the whole "cancel culture!"
Now express your further displeasure by reaching for that fully-mechanical beige keyboard, worn from composing so many anti-Trump missives over the last 4 years, and downvote me soundly! That will teach me a lesson! At least you have the ability to do that because no one upstream of ElReg has decided it doesn't deserve to be on the internet. Yet.
Another snowflake
"For people who supposedly deal in facts there's an abundance of rabid anti-conservatism based on emotion alone"
This story, and us here at the Reg, aren't anti-conservative. It's written with the normal level of emotion. Everything in the story is fact. You need to drop the victim complex. It's not healthy.
"You seem to be perfectly happy with censorship as long as it isn't a viewpoint you support"
Nah man, you need to check out the paradox of tolerance. If a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. If you force the likes of Amazon to enable the spread of hateful, violent messaging, you're not going to see a bright, happy future.
If someone draws the line and says, no, I'm not going to allow people to plan an armed insurrection in my country, then that's your lot. You're not welcome. You've been shown the door. Just like if you mouthed off in a pub at everyone, you'd be thrown out. Go make your own platform or find someone to host you. Amazon doesn't owe you a thing.
"Amazon was not supporting Parlor in the sense of Facebook ... Content was none of their business."
Funny, a conservative telling a private enterprise what to do. I thought you were all about small government? Now you want to tell Amazon how to run its cloud and who it should business with. Weird.
C.
Seems like Parler don't know how private companies work
You know, like choosing who they do business with.