Question I would have for Popehat would be whether a DoS attack is speech or not. If it is, why isn't it protected, because it's inline messaging on the medium it uses and is therefore like any other mediated expression. If it isn't, what is it about attacking the medium and participants that isn't speech?
The problem with the cancel culture people is their "working the ref," strategy launches a DoS attack on the participants in targeted discourses. I'm thinking what the equivalent is, like maybe LibsofTikTok, which is public mockery that likely crosses over into similar cancel-culture consequences, where there is a strong argument to be made that it is incitement. However, I don't think one can defend cancelations in principle without also defending LibsOfTikTok, or much worse, something like 4chan or kiwifarms, because if you are defending the incitement of a cancel mob, you're also defending one that uses mockery and that also results in some lunatic taking it too far.
If the DoS prevents the attacked service from “speaking” itself (by exhausting resources) then I would assert the DoS is analogous to assault and not protected speech.
Also, intent fits in here. The name itself gives a hint- denial of service as in taking something away from the victim.
What about the use of legal threats and NDAs by wealthy individuals and corporations to silence speech? Take what happened with the whistleblowers at theranos for example.
DoS attacks involve an attack on a third party to prevent someone from using a service, making the third party both an unwilling participant and a victim of the attack. I don't think anyone would consider that free speech, as much as they wouldn't consider it free speech to call in a bomb threat to an auditorium.
However, in this day and age unrelated interests are getting roped into the discussion and expressing their ability to make their own speech. This is better phrased as a Terms of Service attack. If you have agreed to use a service that can revoke your access for reasons you agreed to, then you are in a precarious position and your speech is not easily protected.
Is a boycott "denial of service"? I can't think of how that might be without stretching the terms to meaninglessness.
Is a bomb threat or getting someone fired a form of DoS? I'll agree with you there, and I also consider blacklisting a form of this.
If you ask me whether a company like Visa or First Data has the right to deny access to its services over political speech, I think it's clear that nobody has sued them successfully over this. But I would also argue that the payments market should be better regulated and require service for all legal transactions. At the very least, there should be a public option that is resistant to fraud, one where the payer initiates the transaction with an unshared secret, like with Pix in Brazil. The public option should support the free speech guaranteed by the government.
I think cancel culture tends to be somewhat more grounded in sane principles of equality, but the mechanism does make it comparable to far-right mobs. Targets can't really defend themselves and things may escalate into real life. I don't think it's a great loss to discourage cancel culture along with far-right equivalents. A more measured style of discussion is adequate to call out people for being unreasonable or hateful.
A DoS attack can legally be many things, theft of resources, interference, harassment, manslaughter. The question is whether the response to speech that is similar to a DoS attack against the speaker is also those things.
The problem with the cancel culture people is their "working the ref," strategy launches a DoS attack on the participants in targeted discourses. I'm thinking what the equivalent is, like maybe LibsofTikTok, which is public mockery that likely crosses over into similar cancel-culture consequences, where there is a strong argument to be made that it is incitement. However, I don't think one can defend cancelations in principle without also defending LibsOfTikTok, or much worse, something like 4chan or kiwifarms, because if you are defending the incitement of a cancel mob, you're also defending one that uses mockery and that also results in some lunatic taking it too far.