3 ms·
In describing the site as a bastion of free speech, the Parler CEO says “If you can say it on the street of New York, you can say it on Parler.” But, according
by sethbannon 6y ago
In describing the site as a bastion of free speech, the Parler CEO says “If you can say it on the street of New York, you can say it on Parler.”
But, according to the article, "the app doesn’t allow terrorist organizations or support for terrorism, the sharing of false rumors, violent language (what the site describes as 'fighting words') toward others, blackmail or pornography."
Last I was in NYC, "fighting words" were most certainly allowed, as was pornography, as was the sharing of false rumors (most of the time). Seems like he's just drawing a different arbitrary line and trying to claim he's a purist for free speech.
- Traster 6y agoThat's because none of what he said was true, it was signalling.
- gotoeleven 6y agoThose are cases where the supreme court has found restrictions on speech to be justifiable, in case you thought it was just a grab bag of random stuff.
- scarface74 6y agoWell, seeing that Supreme Court decisions on what is legal to censor has absolutely no bearing on what a private corporation can do. The right to free speech only applies to what the government can and can’t do.
- alkibiades 6y agoactually the supreme court has ruled that fighting words, pornography etc, are all perimissable to be banned within the scope of the 1st ammendment. it’s very specific legal terminology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words
- geofft 6y agoRe fighting words, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplinsky_v._New_Hampshire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplinsky_v._New_Hampshire : > The complaint against Chaplinsky stated that he shouted: "You are a God-damned racketeer" and "a damned Fascist". Chaplinsky admitted that he said the words charged in the complaint, with the exception of the name of the deity. It wouldn't surprise me if public sentiment in the US in 1940 was that such terms were not constitutionally protected, but First Amendment jurisprudence has changed a lot since then - see e.g. https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha... and https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim... for some background. Is this site actually taking the position that calling someone "a damned Fascist" is a) not constitutionally protected, as we understand the constitution today b) worth banning? Re pornography, it is very much legal and constitutionally protected in the US. Obscenity (which "appeals to the prurient interest ... depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct ... and ... lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value") isn't constitutionally protected, but this site bans pornography, obscenity, and non-obscene indecency.
- jlgaddis 6y ago> It wouldn't surprise me if public sentiment in the US in 1940 was that such terms were not constitutionally protected, ... Hell, the debate over George Carlin's "seven dirty words" [0] didn't happen until three decades later (a real "gentleman" would never speak such atrocious words!). I can't even imagine how much was verboten in the '40s. --- [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_dirty_words https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_dirty_words
- alkibiades 6y agopornography is banned in public squares despite being legal. you can’t just show it in the middle of downtown... that itself is a restriction re: fighting words they’ve since narrowed the definition but it’s never been overturned
- 6y ago