Kiwifarms legal opponents aren't celebrities, or politicians, or even ordinary people. They are some of the most vulnerable individuals in society. If I had to be sued by somebody I would pick someone living with severe mental health issues every single time.
I'm not arguing that the court should ignore the law and rule otherwise, I'm arguing that the law itself should be changed.
Something can be both legal and ethically wrong. You can apply your same reasoning to Cloudflare's censorship of Kiwifarms: nothing Cloudflare did in this case was illegal, so what is your issue with it?
>I'm not arguing that the court should ignore the law and rule otherwise, I'm arguing that the law itself should be changed.
So long as you're arguing that instead of "tHe CoUrTs ArE nAzIs", then I have nothing else to add because I'm in full agreement with your sentiment concerning law.
>nothing Cloudflare did in this case was illegal, so what is your issue with it?
Of course; Cloudflare has a right to freedom of association and fundamentally I support whatever they choose to do, legally speaking.
However, there is a consequential problem in that the internet is becoming more and more centralized by the day and Cloudflare access is one of those facets.
Generally speaking, if you're a big website you either need Cloudflare or your own CDN to distribute the load and ward off hostile entities.
Consequently, Cloudflare is able to dictate a significant portion of the discourse on the internet by simply allowing or blocking their services. This wouldn't be a big deal if the internet was decentralized like it should be, but it isn't so the internet can't route around such nonsense anymore.
Is this "I don't like the rulings of the court." or "The rulings of the court fly in utter defiance of legal evidence presented."?
Because if it is the former, you are the actual part of the real problem.
Winning in court every single time is a pretty strong argument that they aren't breaking the law even if they are disagreeable.