Free speech -- thoughts on GAB.com

[ickyrica]

With the demise of bipartisan politics, we've all been seeing a concerted effort to erode our constitutional rights. 1A has been under attack in a relentless fashion. 2A is also being picked at, by both parties. Rubio reintroduced a bill that would have your 2A removed just by being investigated for "terrorist" connections or activities. Imagine being stripped of 2A because of an anonymous email? 5A was completely disregarded the other day when Trump had been "compelled to testify" at his impeachement via letter, with the direct threat of his silence and/or lack of cooperation (i.e. not testifying) as being taken as an admission of guilt. Hello... McFly?

There are many layers of concern. My largest concerns are 1A & 2A.

2A isn't that big of an issue considering those that partake in 2A generally relish in it. The sheer quantity of guns and ammo in the USA is unstoppable, outside of a direct, full scale military takeover. If it gets to the point of armed action I believe the armed forces will not be engaging citizens of their own country. I personally see Biden trying to bring in UN Peacekeepers if our military doesn't play ball.

1A is a massive concern to me. The biggest facing our union, imo. Control the info, control the narrative. There is undeniably an effort by those that own media to undermine personal responsibility, conservative values, provable science, etc. Who owns the media? Easy answer there...

MSM destroyed journalism for editorials. Social media deletes any info they choose to, even if the info is 100% accurate. Alternative social media gets black balled and run out of town until they become compliant (parler, which is now a megaphone for rhinos).

Enter GAB. They own their entire operation, all equipment and everything needed to not get shut down (power can be cut I suppose, we're past finding a democratic solution if that happens). The owner, Andrew, allows free speech in any and all forms short of the few specific things that are beyond barbaric/satanic... child abuse, sex abuse, shit like that is obviously not allowed in any manner other than to eradicate the practice of it or to expose it, etc.

I believe any speech restriction is an assault on 1A and shouldn't be allowed. Very much like Andrew. I believe it is disastrous for our Republic and people who endorse free speech restrictions should be considered enemy of the state. Freedom trumps feelings each and every time imo.

How do you feel about 1A and what has been going on? 1A paramount to the success of America?

 

[sinewave3]

Might have to check out Gab.

I agree 1st amendment has been getting crushed recently. Many of they YouTube channels I watch have been demonetized, censored, and deleted. Many of the remaining ones have a huge list of words they can’t even say. Sometimes it cracks me up all the code words, but really it’s sad.

Many people are have been upset to watch big tech drop many accounts, but I remember maybe 4-5 years ago when all this happened before. Tons of accounts were dropped then including controversial personalities like Alex Jones, Mike Adams, and more. During that time apps were removed from the App Stores run by both Apple and Google as well. This is in their playbook.

If you don’t tow the corporate line now, you are baselessly accused of inciting violence, being a domestic extremist, and getting your accounts closed. What’s next? Delete your bank accounts and social security number? Sounds far fetched, but Trumps bank recently closed his accounts and kicked job to the curb. If that happens to small frys you can bet they will not get a check like Donnie did...

 

[ickyrica]

Might have to check out Gab.

I agree 1st amendment has been getting crushed recently. Many of they YouTube channels I watch have been demonetized, censored, and deleted. Many of the remaining ones have a huge list of words they can’t even say. Sometimes it cracks me up all the code words, but really it’s sad.

Many people are have been upset to watch big tech drop many accounts, but I remember maybe 4-5 years ago when all this happened before. Tons of accounts were dropped then including controversial personalities like Alex Jones, Mike Adams, and more. During that time apps were removed from the App Stores run by both Apple and Google as well. This is in their playbook.

If you don’t tow the corporate line now, you are baselessly accused of inciting violence, being a domestic extremist, and getting your accounts closed. What’s next? Delete your bank accounts and social security number? Sounds far fetched, but Trumps bank recently closed his accounts and kicked job to the curb. If that happens to small frys you can bet they will not get a check like Donnie did...

Gab is amazing. It's clunky because of the growth factor but they keep adding gear. It gets incrementally better. They're getting wicked traffic daily.

 

[pigeonhed]

The first amendment to the US Constitution.

The First Amendment provides that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise. It protects freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Constitution | The White House.

How has Congress infringed upon your rights?

 

[ickyrica]

How has Congress infringed upon your rights?

CDA Section 230 would be an obvious start.

""Section 230 says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" (47 U.S.C. § 230). In other words, online intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say and do. The protected intermediaries include not only regular Internet Service Providers (ISPs), but also a range of "interactive computer service providers," including basically any online service that publishes third-party content. Though there are important exceptions for certain criminal and intellectual property-based claims, CDA 230 creates a broad protection that has allowed innovation and free speech online to flourish""

When you pick and choose what you allow on your social media platform you're actively publishing. While I endorse any effort to stop indecent things, Congress provided the framework for this.

Did you vote?

How's weather in the PNW? Ever participate in a "protest"?

 

[pigeonhed]

If you honestly feel any law is interfering in your rights you have options.

American Civil Liberties Union

U.S. Department of Justice

That is how a Constitution Republic/Democracy works. You can feel a right has been infringed upon and you have legal remedy.

Personally I do not share my voting history. My right, my vote. I hope you have the same.

Personally never been in a protest and I do enjoy the weather here.

 

[ickyrica]

If you honestly feel any law is interfering in your rights you have options.

American Civil Liberties Union

U.S. Department of Justice

That is how a Constitution Republic/Democracy works. You can feel a right has been infringed upon and you have legal remedy.

Personally I do not share my voting history. My right, my vote. I hope you have the same.

Personally never been in a protest and I do enjoy the weather here.

If you rely on any federal government entity for your freedom you're already not free. Freedom is a personal responsibility.

230 is just the tip. There are a retarded amount of laws that infringe on our constitutional rights. The culture that owns the media and ultimately the judicial system is a cancer on western society and has been pushing this narrative and effecting our laws for decades. Anyone with a sliver of current civics knowledge knows this.

The remedy to a failed DOJ and hack cuck organizations like the ACLU is to do what you want while waving your middle finger at them. Hence GAB. Legal remedy my dick.

What makes you think a legal remedy is what is really going to fix a soulless federal government? A bloated, money guzzling incestuous circle jerk of back patting and elitist ego stroking is all the feds are. It's going to take more than a nice convo over a cup of folgers with Monty Wilkinson to push the needle back to decency.

You don't have to say who you voted for. It's obvious. I was asking about this thread, if you voted in this thread.

 

[pigeonhed]

Well I am proud to be an American. I think our government while not perfect is the best I have.

Literally a republic comes from the latin meaning "the people's concern".
Democracy or republic? | AEI

How to be an active participant in our government.
United States Government: Civic Engagement in a Representative Republic | United States Government

What an awesome country to be part of.

 

[Demondosage]

As long as you don't say nigger, faggot, queer, nigger-faggot, nigger-faggot-queer, butt pirate, homo, dyke, clam licker, tutie fruit, spick, chink, krout, gunea, slanty eyed salamander, zipper head, wetback, boarder jumper, ingin, sand nigger, sand nigger faggot, turd burglar, keebler elf, fairy.........

As long as you don't say those there is nothing to worry about!

I really don't see what all the fuss is about

 

[ickyrica]

I think our government while not perfect is the best I have

It's the only one you have and it's dissolving from the inside out. Fool.

@Demondosage Keebler elf? You sick fuck

 

[Demondosage]

It's the only one you have and it's dissolving from the inside out. Fool.

@Demondosage Keebler elf? You sick fuck

Hahahahaa

 

[malfeasance]

If you honestly feel any law is interfering in your rights you have options.

American Civil Liberties Union

U.S. Department of Justice

That is how a Constitution Republic/Democracy works. You can feel a right has been infringed upon and you have legal remedy.

Personally I do not share my voting history. My right, my vote. I hope you have the same.

Personally never been in a protest and I do enjoy the weather here.

The ACLU thinks the Second Amendment is a collective right, that is, not a right at all.

Second Amendment | American Civil Liberties Union

Gun Control The question whether the Second Amendment confers an individual or collective right to possess and bear arms has been the subject of much scholarly and legal debate. Some scholars view it as a statement of an individual right and others argue that the Amendment was designed only to...

www.aclu.org

It is difficult to take that position seriously if you are a person who has spent more than even a dozen hours reading sources from around the time the Bill of Rights was being debated as an addition to the constitution.

 

[pigeonhed]

The ACLU thinks the Second Amendment is a collective right, that is, not a right at all.

Second Amendment | American Civil Liberties Union

Gun Control The question whether the Second Amendment confers an individual or collective right to possess and bear arms has been the subject of much scholarly and legal debate. Some scholars view it as a statement of an individual right and others argue that the Amendment was designed only to...

www.aclu.org

It is difficult to take that position seriously if you are a person who has spent more than even a dozen hours reading sources from around the time the Bill of Rights was being debated as an addition to the constitution.

Sounds like you may want to join an organization that will help fight for your rights. The ACLU would not be a good choice. The NRA is obviously going through quite a bit. The Gun Owners of America may suit your needs.

GOA | The only no compromise gun lobby in Washington

Best of luck.

 

[ickyrica]

Sounds like you may want to join an organization that will help fight for your rights. The ACLU would not be a good choice. The NRA is obviously going through quite a bit. The Gun Owners of America may suit your needs.

GOA | The only no compromise gun lobby in Washington

Best of luck.

You stink of faggot

 

[Sampei]

A country that has more gun shops then schools is a fucked up country. Go have a look at gun statistics in America and compare it to the rest of the world.

USA you are fucked up! Your constitution was written hundred years ago during the farwest, it's not the farwest anymore. Imagine living in a country where any average retard can own a gun and usually own multiple guns... Scary as fuck.

Oh noes they are attacking my constitutional right... Ahaha YOU HAVE MORE GUN SHOPS THE SCHOOL! 2021 and you still believe a gun is more important then education! Wake the fuck up

 

[ickyrica]

A country that has more gun shops then schools is a fucked up country. Go have a look at gun statistics in America and compare it to the rest of the world.

USA you are fucked up! Your constitution was written hundred years ago during the farwest, it's not the farwest anymore. Imagine living in a country where any average retard can own a gun and usually own multiple guns... Scary as fuck.

Oh noes they are attacking my constitutional right... Ahaha YOU HAVE MORE GUN SHOPS THE SCHOOL! 2021 and you still believe a gun is more important then education! Wake the fuck up

Sampei, our constitution was put together more than 100 years ago. Are we supposed to take your post seriously if you're not even aware of what you're referencing?

There are more than double k-12 schools in America than FFL. This is discounting higher education and trade schools. Before you type do some reading.

Pro tip... subtract democratic liberal city gun crime and murders from America statistics and what are you left with?

Pro tip... if you only watch MSM and don't get another view at what's going on your being indoctrinated. It's called opposition research and hardly anyone does it these days because they hate acknowledging their emotions lead them down the wrong path.

Don't be a sheep and follow the pack.

P.s. why hasnt China tried to invade America? I'll give you one guess and one hint.... it ain't the military keeping them away

 

[ickyrica]

Gun shop - Wikipedia.

Education Statistics: Facts About American Schools.

There was something like 15 - 20 million guns sold in the USA this year alone. I have a pile of guns, enough ammo to last a year with daily shooting and the ability to make a few hundred rounds daily for about 3 months straight.

I don't have nearly enough.

Out of all guns sold in America this year, do you know what demographic bought the most? EMT/paramedics did. Why? Because street crime has become such an epidemic in this country. Senseless violence directed at first responders is at an all time high. People who spend their life trying to save lives have come under assault, seems reasonable. No?

Do you know the demographics on who's attacking first responders?

Do you know why the media doesn't publish these crimes?

Do you know that EDC saves lives?

Get a GAB account and do some reading. Talk shit to people on there if you like, it's allowed. No censorship. If you allow yourself to fall into a dialog with regular America gun owners you may actually learn something.

Btw, I really want you to subtract democratic liberal city gun crime and murders from America statistics... what are you left with? Please do this for me : )

 

[Millard]

Enter GAB. They own their entire operation, all equipment and everything needed to not get shut down (power can be cut I suppose, we're past finding a democratic solution if that happens). The owner, Andrew, allows free speech in any and all forms short of the few specific things that are beyond barbaric/satanic... child abuse, sex abuse, shit like that is obviously not allowed in any manner other than to eradicate the practice of it or to expose it, etc.

I don't think GAB owns everything. It uses Cloudflare for one thing. I think it also rents most of their servers from unnamed third parties. They face vulnerabilities to the extent that they rely on these third parties.

GAB also has some restrictions on 1st amendment-protected free speech. For example, they prohibit pornography. Furthermore, they prohibit content that advocates violence.

Also, this entire thing with tech companies censoring free speech is not a First Amendment issue. The First Amendment only involves government restrictions on speech.

It doesn't appear the government is forcing any of these tech companies to censor speech. If evidence turns up showing that the government is pressuring tech companies, that is another story.

Having said all that, just because it is tech companies doing the censoring and not the government doesn't mean we should dismiss the issue.

Given that tech companies, arguably some individually and definitely collectively, may hold more power than the government makes it a big fucking deal. This is a real threat to free speech that should be taken seriously.

 

[Millard]

CDA Section 230 would be an obvious start.

CDA Section 230 is the best thing the government did to promote free speech on the internet.

I don't understand why you think it is a bad thing for free speech.

CDA Section 230 allows the owners of social media companies, including forums and messaging apps, to avoid liability for the content posted by the users of their services. Otherwise, the owners would be forced to aggressively censor user content for constant fear of being sued.

Repealing Section 230 represents a dangerous threat to online free speech:

The MESO forum exists, in its current form, in large part thanks to Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act...

The Complex Debate Over Silicon Valley’s Embrace of Content Moderation
Many in tech cheered when Twitter added labels to President Trump’s tweets. But civil libertarians caution that social media companies are moving into uncharted waters.

​

In the midst of this notable shift, some civil libertarians are raising a question in an already complicated debate: Any move to moderate content more proactively could eventually be used against speech loved by the people now calling for intervention.​

​

[...]​

Civil libertarians caution that adding warning labels or additional context to posts raises a range of issues — issues that tech companies until recently had wanted to avoid. New rules often backfire. Fact checks and context, no matter how sober or accurate they are, can be perceived as politically biased. More proactive moderation by the platforms could threaten their special protected legal status. And intervention goes against the apolitical self-image that some in the tech world have.​

​

[...]​

​

Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act, passed in 1996, shields tech platforms from being held liable for the third-party content that circulates on them. But taking a firmer hand to what appears on their platforms could endanger that protection, most of all, for political reasons.​

​

One of the few things that Democrats and Republicans in Washington agree on is that changes to Section 230 are on the table. Mr. Trump issued an executive order calling for changes to it after Twitter added labels to some of his tweets. Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, has also called for changes to Section 230.​

​

“You repeal this and then we’re in a different world,” said Josh Blackman, a constitutional law professor at the South Texas College of Law Houston. “Once you repeal Section 230, you’re now left with 51 imperfect solutions.”​

View attachment 131486

Source: The Complex Debate Over Silicon Valley’s Embrace of Content Moderation

Two Different Proposals to Amend Section 230 Share A Similar Goal: Damage Online Users’ Speech

Whether we know it or not, all Internet users rely on multiple online services to connect, engage, and express themselves online. That means we also rely on 47 U.S.C. § 230 (“Section 230”), which provides important legal protections when platforms offer their services to the public and when they moderate the content that relies on those services, from the proverbial cat video to an incendiary blog post.

Section 230 is an essential legal pillar for online speech. And when powerful people don’t like that speech, or the platforms that host it, the provision becomes a scapegoat for just about every tech-related problem. Over the past few years, those attacks have accelerated; on Wednesday, we saw two of the most dangerous proposals yet, one from the Department of Justice, and the other from Sen. Josh Hawley

The proposals take different approaches, but they both seek to create new legal regimes that will allow public officials or private individuals to bury platforms in litigation simply because they do not like how those platforms offer their services. Basic activities like offering encryption, or editing, removing, or otherwise moderating users’ content could lead to years of legal costs and liability risk. That’s bad for platforms—and for the rest of us.

 

[malfeasance]

A country that has more gun shops then schools is a fucked up country. Go have a look at gun statistics in America and compare it to the rest of the world.

USA you are fucked up! Your constitution was written hundred years ago during the farwest, it's not the farwest anymore. Imagine living in a country where any average retard can own a gun and usually own multiple guns... Scary as fuck.

Oh noes they are attacking my constitutional right... Ahaha YOU HAVE MORE GUN SHOPS THE SCHOOL! 2021 and you still believe a gun is more important then education! Wake the fuck up

A hundred years ago, huh? LOL! 1921. Please, educate us some more. And where you got this silly idea that there are more gun stores than schools - did you just invent that to try to make a point?

The Second Amendment was ratified by the states in 1791, and in 1791 there was no "far west." There was not even a west. The USA was a collection of 14 states (yes, 14, Vermont was a state by then) along the eastern seaboard, surrounded by British, French, and Spanish possessions (Louisiana, Florida, Canada).

Your ignorance is astounding, and yet you seem to think an education has value. That is a good starting point. Educate yourself. Perhaps with a little bit of careful study you can try to understand another's point of view instead of lashing out with inane statements and insults to an entire country based in falsehoods and ignorance.