13 ms·

> American citizens may have freedom of speech, but they find themselves with vanishingly few public forums in which to exercise it fully. Well put. As we've a

> American citizens may have freedom of speech, but they find themselves with vanishingly few public forums in which to exercise it fully. Well put. As we've also seen from numerous leaks and incidents over the years, big business and government often works hand-in-hand, with revolving door policies and barely legal indirect bribes happening regularly. That the government is now seeking to curtail the First Amendment by exerting pressure on these companies should be alarming to anyone.

phailhaus 5y ago
What pressure? Gab is not in trouble. You just don't have the right to conspire to overthrow the government. It's well-understood that Gab is not in any danger, but its members are if they did.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- rscoots 5y ago
  There are obvious ways the govt can pressure people who've committed no criminal act. Being put on a no fly list or terrorist watch list are some examples. Happened all the time during the war on terror.
- colonelpopcorn 5y ago
  Conspiring to overthrow the government is a national pastime in these "13 colonies". "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." Just because the causes have not been enumerated lucidly or coherently doesn't mean that there's not two different peoples in the USA who would like to dissolve the political bands connecting them to one another.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
bsksi 5y ago
This reminds me of the story of kiwi farms and how expensive and mentally taxing for the founder it's been to keep it online. https://kiwifarms.net/threads/biting-the-hand-that-feeds.80828/ https://kiwifarms.net/threads/biting-the-hand-that-feeds.808...
drewrv 5y ago
It seems to me like there are more forums for free speech now than ever before. When in our history has it been easier for the average citizen to find a platform to host their views?
- minikites 5y ago
  You're right, because it's not about having a platform for speech, it's about escaping consequences for speech.
  - mc32 5y ago
    What consequences should there be for exercising the right to free speech? What say aclu?
    - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
      > What consequences should there be for exercising the right to free speech? None. For organizing a violent insurrection? Several.
      - gruez 5y ago
        Sites were being deplatformed before the "violent insurrection" though.
      - mc32 5y ago
        If there were people who organized a violent movement to overthrow the government, they should be prosecuted. Just like organizers who organized the burning of police stations should be investigated and prosecuted. However, I don't think we should prosecute people for having attended an event that got co-opted and where they had no intent on participating in an insurrection or burning police stations.
        JumpCrisscross 5y ago
        > I don't think we should prosecute people for having attended an event that got co-opted and where they had no intent on participating in an insurrection or burning police stations Totally agreed. Notably, nobody has suggested this. And nobody has, at least so far, been prosecuted for being at the wrong place at the wrong time.
OrvalWintermute 5y ago
I'm alarmed. Mainly by the government coercing industry (lots of them, not just BigTech), getting in cahoots with industry, or directly paying industry (govt is definitely a monopsony in medicine since insurance rates are set off of medicare rates). I used to think govt had little control over our economy, but I was wrong. Am hoping that our protections will be renewed because of potential loss of market share, and financial interests. BigTech isn't worth much if they go after 45% of their user population, I mean, product. Because of that I still actively use Amazon, Google, Facebook, and others
criley2 5y ago
It's terribly put. The American concept of freedom of speech has nothing to do with access to public forums but rather is a limit on government action against your ability to run your own forum (newspaper, etc), and if you consider that when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were actually written, most Americans had significantly less forums. A few newspapers made up almost the entirety of public forums when the right was written, and none of them were forced to publish political content they disagreed with. In fact, when you realize that the internet has provided more forums for free speech than any technology in history, it beggars belief to suggest that there are less forums now than before. We are at the ultimate highpoint of access to freespeech forums in American history, and to suggest otherwise is nakedly ignorant conservative propaganda pushing an emotional angle against technology corporations who enforce common sense rules against violence, terrorism, and hate speech on their private networks. I maintain that until Fox News or conservative talk radio is mandated by the government to stop suppressing my free speech rights to have access to the network to say whatever I want, that Facebook and Twitter should not be forced to support insurrection and violence masquerading as free speech. It's hard to understate how outrageous this lie is. It's like suggesting "folks today have less access to electricity than at any point in American history". It's such immensely stupid lie that how could anyone fall for it?
- rscoots 5y ago
  >that Facebook and Twitter should not be forced to support insurrection and violence masquerading as free speech. Where is "force" coming into this other than various government demands and threats?
  - criley2 5y ago
    The entire conservative war against Big Tech is about fake "censorship" (which is actually Free Speech by the private network) and they want to change laws and use the courts to force Facebook and Twitter to allow any content they want to post, including insurrectionist content. This entire debate is about making private networks such as Facebook into "public/government spaces", thus meaning the Bill Of Rights would apply to a private company (an outrageously anti-Constitutional concept) and it would count as government censorship for Twitter to ban an insurrectionist like Trump.
mc32 5y ago
Unfortunately people have stopped discussing free speech and our rights around speech on fist principles and have thoroughly subsumed them to tribal interests. Free speech is good for antifa, bad for pboys. Free speech is good for pboys but bad for antifa. They are both groups of hoodlums and both have the same rights to free speech, but people will want whoever they agree with more to enjoy it and those they agree with less to not enjoy the rights.
caeril 5y ago
> big business and government often works hand-in-hand The bizarre irony is that this condition is a core tenet of Fascism, which is something the "woke" anti-free-speechists claim to be fighting against.
- slumdev 5y ago
  It's pretty common to imagine the worst faults of oneself as being the motivators of one's opponent.
BeFlatXIII 5y ago
The most recent Congressional Dish episode[1] has a discussion on this exact topic. Now I'm off to a rabbit hole of looking up information on fusion centers. [1]https://congressionaldish.com/cd-237-hunting-domestic-terrorists/ https://congressionaldish.com/cd-237-hunting-domestic-terror...
ladyattis 5y ago
I don't believe Gab and other alt-righters really are being honest about the issue. They're only raising alarm because they're a small segment of society that doesn't get along with the rest of us so they don't have many or any lifelines to call on. For the rest of us, it's just a Tuesday, we've been acclimated to the sad reality that the State can and will infringe on rights whenever it sees fit to do so. This doesn't justify what the Congressional committees are doing but that the alt-right in general would be completely fine with having Congress sending out subpoenas to Food not Bombs or the IWW because they're looney leftists or some other spiel. But the moment the mailed fist of the State decides to smash them they squeal as loud as possible. I'm not taking their bait. They're not the good guys. When they universally agree that the rights of life and liberty are to be respected for all parties including leftists like myself then I might consider helping them. Otherwise, I'm not going to waste my time with them nor should you.
- 1MachineElf 5y ago
  >This doesn't justify what the Congressional committees are doing but that the alt-right in general would be completely fine with having Congress sending out subpoenas to Food not Bombs or the IWW because they're looney leftists or some other spiel. Imagine all of the people who have been arbitrarily labelled as "alt-right" in social and traditional media. Do you actually think this is what they generally want?
  - ladyattis 5y ago
    >Imagine all of the people who have been arbitrarily labelled as "alt-right" in social and traditional media. Do you actually think this is what they generally want? Many of them self identify as alt-right. It's largely a self-selected identity. They're often proud of the term too. I have yet to see someone mislabeled alt-right when they're a vanilla conservative. Alt-right really is the far right of old but with Gen Z aesthetics.
UncleMeat 5y ago
Total disagreement. There has never been a time in history where people have had anywhere near the capacity to express completely free speech, including wild bigotry, than today.

phailhaus 5y ago

What pressure? Gab is not in trouble. You just don't have the right to conspire to overthrow the government. It's well-understood that Gab is not in any danger, but its members are if they did.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
rscoots 5y ago
There are obvious ways the govt can pressure people who've committed no criminal act. Being put on a no fly list or terrorist watch list are some examples. Happened all the time during the war on terror.
colonelpopcorn 5y ago
Conspiring to overthrow the government is a national pastime in these "13 colonies". "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." Just because the causes have not been enumerated lucidly or coherently doesn't mean that there's not two different peoples in the USA who would like to dissolve the political bands connecting them to one another.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

bsksi 5y ago

This reminds me of the story of kiwi farms and how expensive and mentally taxing for the founder it's been to keep it online. https://kiwifarms.net/threads/biting-the-hand-that-feeds.80828/ https://kiwifarms.net/threads/biting-the-hand-that-feeds.808...

drewrv 5y ago

It seems to me like there are more forums for free speech now than ever before. When in our history has it been easier for the average citizen to find a platform to host their views?

minikites 5y ago
You're right, because it's not about having a platform for speech, it's about escaping consequences for speech.
- mc32 5y ago
  What consequences should there be for exercising the right to free speech? What say aclu?
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > What consequences should there be for exercising the right to free speech? None. For organizing a violent insurrection? Several.
    - gruez 5y ago
      Sites were being deplatformed before the "violent insurrection" though.
    - mc32 5y ago
      If there were people who organized a violent movement to overthrow the government, they should be prosecuted. Just like organizers who organized the burning of police stations should be investigated and prosecuted. However, I don't think we should prosecute people for having attended an event that got co-opted and where they had no intent on participating in an insurrection or burning police stations.
      - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
        > I don't think we should prosecute people for having attended an event that got co-opted and where they had no intent on participating in an insurrection or burning police stations Totally agreed. Notably, nobody has suggested this. And nobody has, at least so far, been prosecuted for being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

OrvalWintermute 5y ago

I'm alarmed. Mainly by the government coercing industry (lots of them, not just BigTech), getting in cahoots with industry, or directly paying industry (govt is definitely a monopsony in medicine since insurance rates are set off of medicare rates). I used to think govt had little control over our economy, but I was wrong. Am hoping that our protections will be renewed because of potential loss of market share, and financial interests. BigTech isn't worth much if they go after 45% of their user population, I mean, product. Because of that I still actively use Amazon, Google, Facebook, and others

criley2 5y ago

It's terribly put. The American concept of freedom of speech has nothing to do with access to public forums but rather is a limit on government action against your ability to run your own forum (newspaper, etc), and if you consider that when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were actually written, most Americans had significantly less forums. A few newspapers made up almost the entirety of public forums when the right was written, and none of them were forced to publish political content they disagreed with. In fact, when you realize that the internet has provided more forums for free speech than any technology in history, it beggars belief to suggest that there are less forums now than before. We are at the ultimate highpoint of access to freespeech forums in American history, and to suggest otherwise is nakedly ignorant conservative propaganda pushing an emotional angle against technology corporations who enforce common sense rules against violence, terrorism, and hate speech on their private networks. I maintain that until Fox News or conservative talk radio is mandated by the government to stop suppressing my free speech rights to have access to the network to say whatever I want, that Facebook and Twitter should not be forced to support insurrection and violence masquerading as free speech. It's hard to understate how outrageous this lie is. It's like suggesting "folks today have less access to electricity than at any point in American history". It's such immensely stupid lie that how could anyone fall for it?

rscoots 5y ago
>that Facebook and Twitter should not be forced to support insurrection and violence masquerading as free speech. Where is "force" coming into this other than various government demands and threats?
- criley2 5y ago
  The entire conservative war against Big Tech is about fake "censorship" (which is actually Free Speech by the private network) and they want to change laws and use the courts to force Facebook and Twitter to allow any content they want to post, including insurrectionist content. This entire debate is about making private networks such as Facebook into "public/government spaces", thus meaning the Bill Of Rights would apply to a private company (an outrageously anti-Constitutional concept) and it would count as government censorship for Twitter to ban an insurrectionist like Trump.

mc32 5y ago

Unfortunately people have stopped discussing free speech and our rights around speech on fist principles and have thoroughly subsumed them to tribal interests. Free speech is good for antifa, bad for pboys. Free speech is good for pboys but bad for antifa. They are both groups of hoodlums and both have the same rights to free speech, but people will want whoever they agree with more to enjoy it and those they agree with less to not enjoy the rights.

caeril 5y ago

> big business and government often works hand-in-hand The bizarre irony is that this condition is a core tenet of Fascism, which is something the "woke" anti-free-speechists claim to be fighting against.

slumdev 5y ago
It's pretty common to imagine the worst faults of oneself as being the motivators of one's opponent.

BeFlatXIII 5y ago

The most recent Congressional Dish episode[1] has a discussion on this exact topic. Now I'm off to a rabbit hole of looking up information on fusion centers. [1]https://congressionaldish.com/cd-237-hunting-domestic-terrorists/ https://congressionaldish.com/cd-237-hunting-domestic-terror...

ladyattis 5y ago

I don't believe Gab and other alt-righters really are being honest about the issue. They're only raising alarm because they're a small segment of society that doesn't get along with the rest of us so they don't have many or any lifelines to call on. For the rest of us, it's just a Tuesday, we've been acclimated to the sad reality that the State can and will infringe on rights whenever it sees fit to do so. This doesn't justify what the Congressional committees are doing but that the alt-right in general would be completely fine with having Congress sending out subpoenas to Food not Bombs or the IWW because they're looney leftists or some other spiel. But the moment the mailed fist of the State decides to smash them they squeal as loud as possible. I'm not taking their bait. They're not the good guys. When they universally agree that the rights of life and liberty are to be respected for all parties including leftists like myself then I might consider helping them. Otherwise, I'm not going to waste my time with them nor should you.

1MachineElf 5y ago
>This doesn't justify what the Congressional committees are doing but that the alt-right in general would be completely fine with having Congress sending out subpoenas to Food not Bombs or the IWW because they're looney leftists or some other spiel. Imagine all of the people who have been arbitrarily labelled as "alt-right" in social and traditional media. Do you actually think this is what they generally want?
- ladyattis 5y ago
  >Imagine all of the people who have been arbitrarily labelled as "alt-right" in social and traditional media. Do you actually think this is what they generally want? Many of them self identify as alt-right. It's largely a self-selected identity. They're often proud of the term too. I have yet to see someone mislabeled alt-right when they're a vanilla conservative. Alt-right really is the far right of old but with Gen Z aesthetics.

UncleMeat 5y ago

Total disagreement. There has never been a time in history where people have had anywhere near the capacity to express completely free speech, including wild bigotry, than today.