3 ms·

> Have already shown with evidence that they were indeed moderating hate speech and did indeed have it clearly, unambiguously defined in their guidelines. You

> Have already shown with evidence that they were indeed moderating hate speech and did indeed have it clearly, unambiguously defined in their guidelines. You have not done this. Parler allows hate speech. Parler literally takes it as a principle that they only "censor" illegal content and span jurisdiction. That excludes hate speech. Hate speech is not illegal in Parler and Twitter's jurisdiction for the hundredth time. That's why they were banned.

shripadk 6y ago
> Parler allows hate speech. Parler literally says it doesn't allow itself to be used for "civil tort". I can't argue with you if you refuse to even acknowledge the legal terminology used here. Anyways I'll leave this link for you to learn more about how Civil torts are used to combat hate speech: https://scholarship.law.uc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1235&context=uclr https://scholarship.law.uc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1...