United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Attack on Gab Proves Speech Was Never Free
Source:
Gold Goats ‘n Guns
URL Source: https://tomluongo.me/2018/10/29/att ... -proves-speech-was-never-free/
Published: Oct 29, 2018
Author: Thomas Luongo
Post Date: 2018-10-30 09:28:54 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 2641
Comments: 39
“Who runs Bartertown?!” The First Amendment protects your right to say whatever you want free from government prosecution. It does not protect you from saying hateful things on private properties or privately-owned forums without fear of repercussion. That is the very definition of freedom of association. Friday’s attack by an unhinged, vile piece of human excrement on a Synagogue in Pittsburgh wasn’t hours old before real world agendas pushed to the top of the news. Twitter alternative Gab was immediately dropped by PayPal without specific reasons. Then immediately, Gab’s latest hosting service unilaterally gave the company a 48-hour termination notice of its contract. GoDaddy is deregistering its domain name with 12 hour notice. This is the second time Gab has had to switch providers this year. They have been denied an app in the iOS store. Google will not allow their Android app to be in the Play Store. Why is Gab targeted? Because Gab is a true alternative to Twitter which exists outside of the control of the financial and political oligarchy. With the recent passing of the EU’s “Link Law” which is designed to shut down opposition voices, the merged corporate/political oligarchy are moving to ensure that all speech is criminalized. But to do that they first have to square the circle around that pesky First Amendment in the U.S. And that means outsourcing the censorship to the companies who own the Internet access points – the app platforms, the social media giants, the hosting firms and payment processors. If you can’t build and maintain a business then you can’t oppose their rule. With apologies to Trey Parker and Matt Stone, “Free Speech isn’t Free… it costs a buck o’ five.” This is classic barrier-to-entry stuff that the government engages in to protect the market share of the favored companies over their competition. And despite the roadblocks put up in front of Gab it has continued to grow. The platform has improved. I know. I’ve been a member since 2016 when it was only a haven for the vilest of people. That early culture drove me away along with its limitations, but then again, I’m pretty bad at this whole social media thing. But, today that is not the case. Gab simply doesn’t censor you. If you want to be a jerk in public, that’s your business. It doesn’t seem to stop Elizabeth Warren after all. What content you consume and produce is your responsibility and CEO Andrew Torba has given you those tools to speak freely and freely be ignored. In fact, the censorship tools are stronger than they are on Twitter. Gab is more stringent in enforcing its policy to remove speech which is a clear incitement to violence than Twitter is. And that’s the irony of this. While the Synagogue shooter was a member of Gab, he also had a Facebook, Twitter and Instagram account. They did this to Gab because they could and because they were told to. Gab’s statement about the shooting is public for the world to see. And they assisted the police in identifying the person responsible. And yet, Gab will again be off the air, this time for weeks, while it migrates to a new platform, because its existence is a threat to the powerful who are rightly scared of losing their shiny new control platform. It shouldn’t matter whether you like Gab’s platform or not. Free Speech should always be defended, yes even vile anti-Semetic crap. Are there terrible people on Gab? Yes. Are there terrible people posting horrific things on Twitter? Oh, you betcha. Businesses which are paying their bills should be welcomed by service providers. Hosting a platform is not an endorsement of the content of that platform. A 48 hour shutdown notice was designed to destroy Gab’s business. The companies terminating these contracts are doing so because of the pressure from those that want Gab shut down, case closed. And they are hiding behind their vaguely worded Terms of Service to act unilaterally, in clear breach of all precedent in contract law. That the hand of The Davos Crowd is behind this move to shut down alternative speech platforms is chilling. That they are willing to deprive a peaceable man, in this case Gab’s CEO, his right to associate with all who are willing to support him is despicable. Free Speech is cheap, defending it costs money. It’s also messy and chaotic. It means building new systems that prevent this from happening again. The only people who want to see free speech curtailed are those scared by what people say about them. Everyone else should be happy vile men like the shooter let everyone know who they are. They help us define the limits of our associations. Those that spend their money supporting platforms like Gab, news outlets like InfoWars or even people like myself are the means by which we break their control. People like Dave Rubin, Joe Rogan and even Sargon of Akkad have larger audiences now than CNN. Their credibility gap with the public is massive. And it will never be crossed. Moves like this are desperation. They still think the old rules still rule – that these power brokers still control transmission of information. Gab will find a new home. Within hours of their pending de-platforming, another service offered them a home, apparently looking to build a business hosting the unwanted, the maligned and the persecuted. I’m bookmarking that for future reference. Governments are like generals, always fighting the last war. Humans are too smart to be kept down for too long. Someone will always find a way to offer a work-around to an existing problem. And if the problem is censorship, then the solution is technology. That’s what the division of labor is all about. Gab itself was a reaction to Silicon Valley’s hatred of free speech. Eventually all of this will be put on a blockchain and paid for outside of the normal banking system if Soros, Zuckerberg, Merkel and the rest of these corporatists continue pushing for total control over speech. Meanwhile, Gab just had its best couple of days in terms of new accounts ever. Just like Alex Jones saw interest in InfoWars spike after his un-personing in August. So, I have no doubt that Gab will survive because as Ron Paul so brilliantly said during his runs for the Presidency, “Freedom is Popular.” And that freedom is what Twitter and Facebook have forgotten. They were popular because of their lack of filter. Their anarchy. And if there is one thing the government hates is competition. What is the antithesis to government? Lack of it. Everything great in the world was created through voluntary exchange. Through functional anarchy. Even if you disagree with this article, you are doing so freely, without any coercion. All I can do is offer up my best ideas and see if you like them. I can’t make you read this. And I don’t do it for free. I do it because I can’t not do it and feel what I have to say is worth not only your time but your direct support. And so far more than 210 of you have chosen freely to do just that. For that I am incredibly grateful. Just like I supported Gab at the outset, sending in donations because I saw this coming. And I knew that money spent today was a down payment on a world without speech controls tomorrow. And that’s something we should all shout about at the tops of our lungs.
— Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
Since the government didn't shut it down, what's the problem? Even the author admits that "(The first amendment) does not protect you from saying hateful things on private properties or privately-owned forums".
Yes it does.
No it doesn't. If you want to talk about national secrets, you're not protected by the First Amendment. If you want to make deals with the enemy to help him destroy your country, your speech is not protected. If you want to lie in business transactions to induce people to transact business with you by fraud, your speech is not protected. If you want to tell scandalous lies about people in public fora, that speech isn't protected and they can sue you for it. If you want to publicize pictures of children, that speech isn't protected. If you want to sext children, that speech isn't protected. If you want to conspire to commit crimes, that speech is not protected. If you're under a judicial gag order and you break it, your speech is not protected. The First Amendment does not protect anybody's right to say whatever he wants free from government prosecution. There is a great deal of speech that can be punished by the government without violating the First Amendmnent.
Since the government didn't shut it down, what's the problem? Even the author admits that "(The first amendment) does not protect you from saying hateful things on private properties or privately-owned forums". Walmart is also private. But that doesn't give them the right to ban blacks or asians. Or whites for that matter. Business operations that cater to the public do NOT have undisputed legal right to discriminate against people based on their politics.
That is an argument for another thread. I say they DO have that right. But back to matter at hand. The first amendment is clear -- "Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech". The 14th amendment extended that to state legislatures, not private businesses. The Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex/sexual orientation, age or disability.
If the first amendment protected people from saying hateful things on privately- owned forums, the Fred could sue you into bankruptcy.
Read carefully what you said and read carefully what I said. Then get back to me.
Pastors in Canuckistan are prohibited from citing "offensive" passages of the Bible. How long till...
I did. Now you should do the same.
[race, color, religion, national origin, sex/sexual orientation, age or disability] All of which become pretty much moot points in the context of collectivist- corporate ownership wherein the cube-slaves are prohibited from asking about who's paying for the train (because infrastructure financing is political) while the MBA's in charge are providing links to go VOTE for the train. The fact that the train just happens to run through property where multi- family/low income housing will be built - and the fact that The Company is involved in financing that "infrastructure" and housing.... meh, pay no attention to that - just shut up and code!
In Coloradistan, Governor Chickenlooper and his Marxist Bankster infrastructure financing cronies do.
Okay I want to say hateful things on a private website. I say this hateful thing. I can't be prosecuted for it because of the First Amendment. It does protect me.
Correct. It does protect you from government punishment. It does not protect you from private website punishment (banning). However, the current controversy involves protection from private website punishment (banning) on web sites so large as to be considered "public accommodations" (Facebook, Google, YouTube & Twitter).
That is an argument for another thread. I say they DO have that right. You are spouting libertarian gobblygook. I did say they did not have *undisputed* right. It doesn't mean that certain businesses do not have that right. Some utility companies are private, but that doesn't mean they have a right to cut off water or electric service to people because they don't like the campaign signs in the yard. It comes down to the issue of balancing one's right to freedom of speech with a business owner's right to restrict business sales to people based on how much he approves of them. On the spectrum of wedding cakes to corporate retailers, the rule changes wildly.
How does Pay Pal get away with cutting people off? It should be illegal. They are open to the public or they aren't. That would be consistent with other similar situations.
They are a PRIVATE business. They can cater to whom ever they choose. You should endorse this. You are looking at it skewed. Just because the PUBLIC walks into your PRIVATELY owned business, doesn’t mean government can force you to cater. Now, if the PUBLIC walked into a GOVERNMENT funded business, then because the PUBLIC owns it, they must cater to all.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Every incident you wrote to prove we do not have free speech, is itself a crime. There is a difference between a crime and speech. There is no speech that government should be able to criminalize, that does not SPECIFICALLY harm another. By harm, I mean direct physical, financial or national harm. As concerns Judicial gag orders, many rights can be taken away under court order, that is a special case.
THIS IS A TAG LINE...Exercising rights is only radical to two people, Tyrants and Slaves. Which are YOU? Our ignorance has driven us into slavery and we do not recognize it.
Sure. The crimes are speech that the government has decided to criminalise.
What if your power company did that? Is that ok? What if they turned your power off because of some posts you made here? You would be ok with that? If company says it transfers money. They should do that for everyone. Otherwise it is discrimination.
Synagogue Shooter Used Facebook, Twitter, & Gab But Only One Punished Was Gab Who Doesn’t Censor
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. If a private business has a monopoly on the service they provide, they should be considered a "public accommodation" and should not be allowed to deny those services to anyone. In my opinion. Other than monopolies, private businesses should be allowed to deny service to anyone. "On the spectrum of wedding cakes …" OK. So let's say the government forces a baker to provide a wedding cake to a gay couple (in spite of the baker's religious beliefs). Because of that, all the baker's straight customers (many of whom are members of his church) refuse to do business with him. His business suffers. He loses money. Does the government have an obligation to reimburse him for his lost business?
First National Bank, Delta, United Airlines and FedEx dropped the discounts and special offers they awarded NRA members in the wake of the February school shooting in Parkland, Florida. Should that be legal? Can they do the same to black and Hispanic gang members? Planned Parenthood? The DNC?
You're right about this. Where you really see this starting to happen is in the sphere of private white citizens having a private conflict with some private black citizen and calling the police (rightly or wrongly). The retaliatory result is that there's Internet outrage, and the white person gets fired from his or her job by his or her private employer, because the employer has the right to fire whomever, whenever, for whatever reason, even if the reason has nothing to do with the business or job performance. There have been five stories in the last month of white people being fired by their employers because they either called the police on a black person, or challenged the black person's right to enter a piece of private property. The case hit the internet, people went ballistic with charges of "RACISM!" (even though the real reason was often just bitchiness), and the white person's employer finds out about the incident from the Facebook outrage, and fires the white person for having tangled with a black person and gotten called out about it. Employment-at-will is rapidly becoming the primary means by which white mouths will be shut on political matters, because employers are going to start equating "controversial" (meaning conservative) political statements by whites with "racism", and throwing whites out of their jobs for their political beliefs. And folks like some of the commenters here - old white guys securely living on Social Security - will uphold the employers' rights to do so. One has to decide what is more important: free political speech (on private time), or employer authority to fire people for expressing things in their free time that the employer doesn't like. The heaviest blows of unfairness are going to fall on white people in this - they already are. People need to think very clearly. The very tools that worked in the past to maintain the socio-economic order are being captured and turned into tools of oppression against the dwindling majority. We have to be smart, not wooden-headed. When speaking of Internet sites and Pay Pal, you are correct: these are effectively public utilities, and should be treated as such: access to all.
No. They cannot. They can't cut off benefits to any minority or politically privileged Left wing group. Only right wingers and whites can be cut off like this. Those are the political realities of our day.
No. Rather, the government has the obligation to force every OTHER baker to also serve gays, so that the customers and churches cannot refuse to do business with one for serving gays and go to the others who don't, but either have to go to bakers who serve gays (because all do), or stop eating cake and cookies completely, because cake and cookies cannot be obtained from anybody who does not make them for gays - because the government doesn't allow ANY business to not serve gays. THAT is how the game is played. In a similar vein, you don't do taxation voluntarily, because that disfavors the people who pay it in competition with those who don't. You force everybody to do the thing nobody wants to do, and you use law enforcement to crush out of existence whoever tries to get a competitive advantage by not following the law that forces everybody to do what they want to do. It's pretty simple, really, a fundamental principle of governance. The other is that those in power skew the laws to favor themselves and their allies.
If the government can force bakeries to serve gays, why can't they force customers to purchase cakes and cookies?
Monopolies are regulated. This tells me that if a “power company” shuts off your power, because they just don’t want to cater to you... you should be able to find an alternative power source. I believe in capitalism driving all our business. I believe any private business deserves the right to not cater to any customer they choose not to... like selling cakes to faggots. Those faggots had alternatives to buy elsewhere. I have 2 or 3 alternatives to be supplied with gas or power, where I live. And don’t forget, if you rely on anything to survive, besides yourself... you’re a filthy WEAK fucking sheep. You surprise me every once in a while... your ideologies on this issue are part of the reasons the average American is an enabled, entitled... sheep. If someone can only survive by getting power from one source... then I suggest that SHEEP keep his weak mouth shut. Being responsible for our actions, words and opinions... is a long lost Conservative ideal. Reducing freedoms to protect people against their ACTIONS... is the new snowflake society that fights Trump. Forcing me, as a private business, to cater to everyone, reduces my freedoms as an American. Even if I sell power. Maybe I don’t want to supply FaceBook with power? Maybe FaceBook should make its own power station. Maybe you should too.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Vic. THe faggot catholic crusader. Crusading in behalf of antichrist faggots.
What if they all decide to cut you off the gas and electric grid?
Then you find a way with wood or propane... you know, be self reliant. What did 6 generations ago, did they do when a firewood or coal seller stopped selling coal? They found a way... it’s what drives NEW BUSINESS
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Because if they try, the Supreme Court will tell them they can't. Probably.
Given all of my obvious real flaws, why resort to fiction?
You left off my last word. Crusader. As in you crusade for their cause. Not that you are one.
I misubderstood you. But no, I don't crusade for their cause. I don't particularly care for their cause. When i say that I do not care how people procure their orgasms, I mean it. I do not care. I don't think that because boys like to jerk off with boys, that they should be able to get Social Security on account of it. Gay marriage is not marriage. I don't think that boys who like to diddle boys should be barred from anything meaningful. They can still carry a gun, a badge, fly a plane. Their sexual proclivities have no bearing on their professional military or other abilities. I think that the stream of commerce is just that: the stream of commerce, and that people who enter into it, who choose to profit from the immense advantages that being within the UNited States, protected by the American Army, and the police, and the laws and the system of justice, with our nonpareil infrastructure - all of which is paid for by every taxpayer - those who have the privilege of earning the tremendously greater profits that can be earned by the privilege of doing business here, have to open their doors to all comers, and that those polcie and laws and courts should not permit them to bar taxpaying Americans from regular commerce. So, if you're going to have something like PayPal, and profit from it within this American system, I do not believe you have any right to exclude anybody, including Republicans you don't like, from being able to use the service. This Internet was created by US government funding, and US law and defense holds it up. The Republican Party is part and parcel of this America, and if youj're going to try to block it out under some assertion of the "right to be bigoted", then I would say that you can go be bigoted and poor, but you shall not participate in the open stream of commerce that makes this country great and prosperous. And yes, that means if you're going to run a bakery, you are going to sell cookies to the gays too. And it means that if a black guy walks into you restaurant, you're going to serve him - even if you're a grand dragon of the Klan in your private time, or you will not earn one more penny in the open and free commerce that the laws and army and taxpayers uphold. You have to right toi be bgoted, or you have the right to make money in the stream of commerce. Pick on. Put on your sheet and be poor and work for sometbody else, or open your doors for business and serve the blacks too. That's the deal. It's a deal I wikll enforce with the guns of the police and the courts. The Supreme Court of the United State and the vast bulk of the Constitutional enforcers of both parties agree with me. Some petty little bigored pukes on marginal internat sites don't. IF you don't, go fuck yourself but obey, or lose your business. OPPRESSOR! I hear the nutjobs scream from the swamp. Guess so. If that makes me a faggot crusader...whatever. Don't care what they're screaming down in the fever swamps. I don't give a shit about the gays, unless somebody tells them they can't shop there. Then I di. I don't care for the GOP much, but if PayPal thinks it's going to exercise political censorship, then it's a test of power - enforce the law, crush them. They have no right to participate in the stream of American commerce and make a living here anymore if they will not serve Repiblicans. If that's oppression, then bring it
Let's not forget that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the government could force citizens to purchase health insurance. So there's that.
If you don't want to bake a faggot wedding cake. You don't have to. If the faggots don't like it they can eat lead.
Selling cookies to gays was never the issue. The baker said he did that all the time. The issue was forcing a Christian baker to participate in a gay marriage by providing the custom-designed wedding cake. Seems to me that the first amendment's protection of the free exercise of one's religion trumps some Civil Rights Act meant to apply to government.
Or they can go across the street to another baker. But this incident was never about a wedding cake. If was about using the force of government to compel people to accept gays/gay marriage as normal.
I'll work for a faggot. I'll probably subconsciously charge them more. Or maybe it is lets call it a fag tax. I've worked for a faggot who runs a fake church. I've also worked for a faggot who had nude pics on his walls. That was strange. He was strange. So I will work for them. But I don't have to if I don't want to. I'm sure I also worked for a faggot who I didn't know was a faggot. Hell I even worked for a tranny once. I didn't know it was a tranny until the man in the dress got some drywall out of the back of his vehicle and just picked it up. I would never work for that tranny freak again though. Asshole wanted me to do more work then we agreed upon. I was working on trimming out some windows. The freak wanted me to adjust the windows because its helper didn't do it right. I said that would be more and the weirdo didn't want to pay more. So I had to get the contract out and read it real slow for the retard. I said you see here it says trim out windows. It doesn't say fix your peoples fuck ups because they are to stupid. I said that is why I have contracts for people like you. I also ran into one of those men in women's clothing in McDonalds. I just made fun of him to his fact and with other customers. Ridicule the weirdos to their faces.
And yet, Gab will again be off the air
#2. To: misterwhite (#1)
The first amendment) does not protect you from saying hateful things on private properties or privately-owned forums".
#3. To: Deckard (#0)
The First Amendment protects your right to say whatever you want free from government prosecution.
#4. To: misterwhite (#1)
#5. To: Pinguinite (#4)
Business operations that cater to the public do NOT have undisputed legal right to discriminate against people based on their politics.
#6. To: A K A Stone (#2)
#7. To: misterwhite (#6)
#8. To: Deckard (#0)
..is illegal?
#9. To: A K A Stone (#7)
Read carefully what you said and read carefully what I said. Then get back to me.
#10. To: misterwhite (#5)
The Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex/sexual orientation, age or disability.
#11. To: Deckard (#0)
(Edited)
“Who runs Bartertown?!” — Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome
#12. To: misterwhite (#9)
#13. To: A K A Stone (#12)
#14. To: misterwhite (#5)
#15. To: Pinguinite (#14)
It comes down to the issue of balancing one's right to freedom of speech with a business owner's right to restrict business sales to people based on how much he approves of them. On the spectrum of wedding cakes to corporate retailers, the rule changes wildly.
#16. To: A K A Stone (#15)
How does Pay Pal get away with cutting people off? It should be illegal. They are open to the public or they aren't.
#17. To: Vicomte13 (#3)
#18. To: jeremiad (#17)
There is a difference between a crime and speech.
#19. To: GrandIsland (#16)
They are a PRIVATE business. They can cater to whom ever they choose. You should endorse this.
#20. To: jeremiad, A K A Stone, All (#17)
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#21. To: Pinguinite (#14)
(Edited)
#22. To: A K A Stone (#15)
How does Pay Pal get away with cutting people off? It should be illegal. They are open to the public or they aren't. That would be consistent with other similar situations.
#23. To: A K A Stone (#19)
What if your power company did that? Is that ok? What if they turned your power off because of some posts you made here? You would be ok with that? If company says it transfers money. They should do that for everyone. Otherwise it is discrimination.
#24. To: misterwhite (#22)
Can they do the same to black and Hispanic gang members? Planned Parenthood? The DNC?
#25. To: misterwhite (#21)
OK. So let's say the government forces a baker to provide a wedding cake to a gay couple (in spite of the baker's religious beliefs). Because of that, all the baker's straight customers (many of whom are members of his church) refuse to do business with him. His business suffers. He loses money. Does the government have an obligation to reimburse him for his lost business?
#26. To: Vicomte13 (#25)
or stop eating cake and cookies completely
#27. To: A K A Stone (#19)
(Edited)
#28. To: Vicomte13 (#25)
#29. To: GrandIsland (#27)
I have 2 or 3 alternatives to be supplied with gas or power, where I live.
#30. To: A K A Stone (#29)
#31. To: misterwhite (#26)
If the government can force bakeries to serve gays, why can't they force customers to purchase cakes and cookies?
#32. To: A K A Stone (#28)
(Edited)
Vic. THe faggot
#33. To: Vicomte13 (#32)
#34. To: A K A Stone (#33)
You left off my last word. Crusader. As in you crusade for their cause. Not that you are one.
#35. To: Vicomte13 (#31)
Because if they try, the Supreme Court will tell them they can't. Probably.
#36. To: Vicomte13 (#34)
And yes, that means if you're going to run a bakery, you are going to sell cookies to the gays too.
#37. To: Vicomte13 (#34)
And yes, that means if you're going to run a bakery, you are going to sell cookies to the gays too.
#38. To: A K A Stone (#36)
If the faggots don't like it they can eat lead.
#39. To: misterwhite (#38)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]