That's not a good example imo, since newspaper ads are in any case a curated platform.

>since newspaper ads are in any case a curated platform.

They are? You just pay $100 (or whatever) and it gets posted. The only curation that might happen is the fact that a human probably has to manually insert it into the draft, because the newspaper hasn't developed proper automation for this sort of stuff. Moreover this is easily side-stepped by replacing "newspaper classifieds" with "ads stapled onto power poles" or "ads placed online" (in which case it probably is automated and there's no human review).

▲

bigbadfeline 2 days ago | parent [-]

> Isn't that kind of like saying "it's fine to have hit-for-hire ads in newspaper classifieds"

No, it's not "kind of" in legal sense. Genaral information and specific threats are treated differently under the law. Genaral info us free speech. Specific threats are criminal intent and conspiracy - all punishable.

	▲	gruez 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		>No, it's not "kind of" in legal sense. Genaral information and specific threats are treated differently under the law. That argument doesn't really make sense considering illegal streaming sites are allowing you to commit a crime immediately. The "general information" equivalent for copyright infringement would be something like a wikipedia article on how torrents work. Moreover if your objection is over the fact that hit-for-hire is violence and illegal streaming sites isn't, what do you think about sites offering other sorts of non-violent crime? DDoS or doxing for hire, for instance? Should the authorities be able to get an injunction against such sites?