Whatever judge wrote this preliminary decision for Parler should get free beer for life.

1. This is not a 1A case b/c only applies against a gov't entity.

2. Parler has not denied that the violent and abusive posts on their site violated AWS's acceptable use policy.

Parler: AWS should have given us 30 days notice. It's in this section.

AWS: That same section explains by allowing violent content, Parler broke their end of the contract. We had grounds for immediate suspension but still tried to work with them for over a month.

Judge: Parler failed to show any indication they could prevail in pursuit of claims over:
1) breach of contract
2) anti-trust
3) tortious interference

BUT

AWS shows reinstating Parler is a direct threat to public safety!

Parler: Butttttt we were working on a super-duper content moderation system when AWS realized our site was directly linked to the violence on the US Capitol!

Judge: Until that "system" is implemented, there is zero doubt the same types of content would continue.

This entire paragraph is beautiful, and this sentence captures why I defended AWS:

"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."

Many conservatives claimed dropping Parler was censorship and infringement on free speech.

Newsflash: incendiary and violent speech are not covered under free speech. It's not in the public interest to compel a business to work with an entity that facilitates such activities.

AWS clearly noted that Parler signed an agreement that they would prevent incendiary and violent content. Allowing it to persist would violate their policy & allow them to terminate Parler w/o any notice.

Parler used selected portions of this exact policy to claim that AWS broke the contract.

The same conservatives who mostly supported Masterpiece Bakery have claimed that AWS should be compelled to host websites that clearly incite violence.

While Masterpiece actually falls under 1A and shouldn't be a comparison, these two opinions contradict each other.

If you think that a Christian baker should have the freedom to turn down customers that conflict with his religious beliefs, you should have no problem with a company terminating the service of a client that flagrantly broke the rules they previously agreed to follow.