I never said it was no big deal, I simply said that given this particular situation to call it unconstitutional and a violation of human rights was a little extreme.
As far as your question goes, thats where it becomes a BIG grey area and unfortunately I cannot comment on that particular situation 100% confidently.
To many cards come into play with that one, because while its a page someone made, its hosted on facebooks servers, and at that point facebook can do whatever they want, if facebook tells the government no and they (government) shut down facebook then yes I see that as unconstitutional, but if they go to facebook and ask them to take it down and they (facebook) agree? By no means do I think its right but facebook can do whatever the fuck they want with whatever is hosted on their server space.
It’s even a big grey area with ISP’s, they can do whatever the fuck they want when it comes to content filtering, they can see everything you do, a lot of them have no issue handing over your online deeds to the government should they so choose to view it, if the government contacts all ISP’s and asks them to block a specific address is that really considered a rights violation if the ISP agrees? The ISP reserves all right to block that traffic, you sign that contract, just because the government asked them to does it become a rights violation then?
If an ISP or any provider did not agree to the governments requests and then forcefully shut down that ISP/Provider then yes its 100% a rights violation IMO
WAYY to much grey area in the age of the interwebs.
It’s hard to draw that line when theres a middleman and so much grey area.