3 ms·

It's ironic that you are alluding to the quote by pastor Martin Niemöller that was making a point completely opposite to yours. Free speech is not about protect

It's ironic that you are alluding to the quote by pastor Martin Niemöller that was making a point completely opposite to yours. Free speech is not about protecting popular opinions. I cannot believe how many comments hostile to free speech are on this thread. It's almost like people are begging for oppression.

notahacker 8y ago
I have a sneaking suspicion that Niemöller was admonishing his past self and German intellectuals in general for thinking Naziism was something that could be accommodated and compromised with if it didn't affect them directly, not admonishing those corporations that declined to publish their propaganda...
spookthesunset 8y ago
> I cannot believe how many comments hostile to free speech are on this thread It's almost like what is being discussed has nothing to do with free speech. BitChute didn't have its free speech rights harmed in any way. No jack booted government thugs pointed their guns at the owners faces and told them to unplug from the internet. All that happened is their current payment provider determined that their business relationship wasn't profitable and terminated the business relationship. BitChute is free to find another way to seek payment.
- apostacy 8y ago
  > It's almost like what is being discussed has nothing to do with free speech. BitChute didn't have its free speech rights harmed in any way. No jack booted government thugs pointed their guns at the owners faces and told them to unplug from the internet. Jack booted thugs most certainly will point guns at anyone who tries setting up a payment processing system to compete with the company that blocked them. > All that happened is their current payment provider determined that their business relationship wasn't profitable and terminated the business relationship. BitChute is free to find another way to seek payment. BitChute is NOT free to find another way to seek payment, because of a state-enforced monopoly on the payment market. It would be like if your water company decided to cut off water to your house, to compel you to stop speaking, at the behest of activists. Sure, you're "free" to carry buckets of fresh water to your house, I suppose. No, this is not some business decision, this is systematic economic pressure intended to coerce someone into silence. And frankly I think it is good grounds for a RICO case.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> Free speech is not about protecting popular opinions. It's also not about protecting any opinions (popular or unpopular) from private refusal to assist in propagating them. Free speech is not the same as anyone else being obligate to provide assistance with distributing your speech, in fact, such an entitlement would violate freedom of speech for those compelled to participate in speech they disagree with.
- apostacy 8y ago
  Is it the freedom of banks to not offer checking accounts to minorities? Why can't a bank express itself in the form of denying service to some people? Must they be compelled to? Yes. If these platforms and payment processors want to continue to enjoy the state-enforced privileges they receive, then they must, within reason, offer their services to all.
DarthTetanus 8y ago
“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out, for the Brownshirts should be allowed to express their opinions.”

notahacker 8y ago

I have a sneaking suspicion that Niemöller was admonishing his past self and German intellectuals in general for thinking Naziism was something that could be accommodated and compromised with if it didn't affect them directly, not admonishing those corporations that declined to publish their propaganda...

spookthesunset 8y ago

> I cannot believe how many comments hostile to free speech are on this thread It's almost like what is being discussed has nothing to do with free speech. BitChute didn't have its free speech rights harmed in any way. No jack booted government thugs pointed their guns at the owners faces and told them to unplug from the internet. All that happened is their current payment provider determined that their business relationship wasn't profitable and terminated the business relationship. BitChute is free to find another way to seek payment.

apostacy 8y ago
> It's almost like what is being discussed has nothing to do with free speech. BitChute didn't have its free speech rights harmed in any way. No jack booted government thugs pointed their guns at the owners faces and told them to unplug from the internet. Jack booted thugs most certainly will point guns at anyone who tries setting up a payment processing system to compete with the company that blocked them. > All that happened is their current payment provider determined that their business relationship wasn't profitable and terminated the business relationship. BitChute is free to find another way to seek payment. BitChute is NOT free to find another way to seek payment, because of a state-enforced monopoly on the payment market. It would be like if your water company decided to cut off water to your house, to compel you to stop speaking, at the behest of activists. Sure, you're "free" to carry buckets of fresh water to your house, I suppose. No, this is not some business decision, this is systematic economic pressure intended to coerce someone into silence. And frankly I think it is good grounds for a RICO case.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> Free speech is not about protecting popular opinions. It's also not about protecting any opinions (popular or unpopular) from private refusal to assist in propagating them. Free speech is not the same as anyone else being obligate to provide assistance with distributing your speech, in fact, such an entitlement would violate freedom of speech for those compelled to participate in speech they disagree with.

apostacy 8y ago
Is it the freedom of banks to not offer checking accounts to minorities? Why can't a bank express itself in the form of denying service to some people? Must they be compelled to? Yes. If these platforms and payment processors want to continue to enjoy the state-enforced privileges they receive, then they must, within reason, offer their services to all.

DarthTetanus 8y ago

“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out, for the Brownshirts should be allowed to express their opinions.”