Gab.com’s Response to Congress • Hacker News Board

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#91

Post by hellcow » Thu, Sep 02, 2021, 2:16 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #58

minikites wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, because it's not about having a platform for speech, it's about escaping consequences for speech.

What consequences should there be for exercising the right to free speech? What say aclu?

Is this a serious comment?

Of course there's consequences for your speech. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence.

If you're an outspoken Nazi, you have the right to your speech, but I have the right to not interact with you, and companies have the right not to serve you. Those are consequences of your speech.

Freedom of speech means you won't be arrested for it, not that everyone needs to listen.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#92

Post by simiones » Thu, Sep 02, 2021, 2:17 PM UTC

criley2 wrote: post #46

fragileone wrote: post #9

> 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…

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 ri…

While I don't think the original claim is in any way obvious, and you may well be right overall, you're also making a huge mistake in your look at history - newspapers are not and have never been "public forums" (except to the minor extent that they occasionally published letters to the editor).

Instead, historic public forums were mostly related to in-person meetings - town halls, clubs, pubs etc. These have not been outlawed nor disappeared entirely, but they are almost entirely atrophied. Instead, public discussion has moved almost entirely online. This has created a complex situation, as online forums are almost always private property, unlike the forums of the past.

This situation is creating an unprecedented situation for free speech - as private mega corporations, not bound by the first ammendment, are now in control of a huge percentage of public communication. It seems pretty clear that Facebook or YouTube can't just be handled as publishers, nor as network operators, nor as broadcasters, nor as any other traditional form of communication. We will need to invent a new concept of how such communication should be regulated and moderated.

On the other hand, it's also true there is more public communication, and with higher reach, then probably ever before in history.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#93

Post by gruez » Thu, Sep 02, 2021, 2:17 PM UTC

arp242 wrote: post #80

minikites wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, because it's not about having a platform for speech, it's about escaping consequences for speech.

This, too, seems more free than every before. Not all that long ago you could be fined and imprisoned for things like blasphemy and obscenity, never mind the whole anti-communist "red scare" that lasted for a few decades. There are loads of examples from just a few decades ago that would be unthinkable today. I'm not saying things are perfect or that there aren't any problems, but I feel sometimes the historical pers…

>but I feel sometimes the historical perspective is a bit lost.

How is the "historical perspective" relevant here? Are you just arguing "we actually have it pretty good right now compared to the past so we shouldn't feel so bad about freedom of speech slipping"?

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#94

Post by cobrabyte » Thu, Sep 02, 2021, 2:18 PM UTC

thrwaway9871 wrote: post #37

Funny test: this post has 61 votes, 16 comments, is 21 minutes old and is on front page. It will be "dead" and off the front page in the next hour if usual hn moderation is applied. This usually happens to thread where majority of comments go against the grain. Edit: thread is a bit over 1 hour old, 125 points, 119 comments and on page 4. All the other threads on page 4 are of comparable vote/comment count but at lea…

Yeah, that didn't take long. Polarizing topic, for sure.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#95

Post by neurobashing » Thu, Sep 02, 2021, 2:18 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #58

minikites wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, because it's not about having a platform for speech, it's about escaping consequences for speech.

What consequences should there be for exercising the right to free speech? What say aclu?

well for example there is no law against standing in a public square, be it physical or virtual, and screaming racial epithets. The government cannot forbid it, and within certain limitations (eg "disruption of the peace") they cannot stop someone from doing it with law or force. It is free and protected speech, albeit abhorrent.

However there is no law against our hypothetical racist being uninvited from the opening of an art gallery whose first exhibition is the work of african-american artists. It is a private organization who does not want to associate with someone.

Or to put it simply: it's OK to downvote someone. That's how communities work!

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#96

Post by Finnucane » Thu, Sep 02, 2021, 2:18 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #58

minikites wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, because it's not about having a platform for speech, it's about escaping consequences for speech.

What consequences should there be for exercising the right to free speech? What say aclu?

Depends on what you are saying. If you make a credible threat against someone, you can be held criminally liable for that. If you libel someone, they can sue you. Free speech means that you have a right to say what you want and the government can't block you from doing so. There's a very high legal bar for prior restraint. After the fact there are circumstances in which you could be in legal trouble.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#97

Post by gruez » Thu, Sep 02, 2021, 2:18 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #81

mc32 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What consequences should there be for exercising the right to free speech? What say aclu?

> What consequences should there be for exercising the right to free speech? None. For organizing a violent insurrection? Several.

Sites were being deplatformed before the "violent insurrection" though.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#98

Post by criley2 » Thu, Sep 02, 2021, 2:19 PM UTC

rscoots wrote: post #78

criley2 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Thanks for reminding me about those efforts. Glad they've mostly petered out by now.

They have not petered out, and if the Republicans take control of the House in 2022, they have already sworn to immediately pass legislation on this subject.

And with this radically anti-Free Speech conservative supreme court majority, you better believe that the rights of private networks to publish content free from government interference is still high risk.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#99

Post by JumpCrisscross » Thu, Sep 02, 2021, 2:19 PM UTC

aww_dang wrote: post #82

drewrv wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

>When in our history... Before the masses were corralled into walled gardens. If a free and open Internet was a threat to gatekeepers, walled gardens are the solution. You can say anything you want on their platforms, as long as it adheres to the party's content guidelines. The gate-kept illusion of freedom is arguably more toxic, because it normalizes the curated garden of propagandized views. Yes, you have more opt…

> Before the masses were corralled into walled gardens

The total audience for the internet was far less in those days.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#100

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Sep 02, 2021, 2:19 PM UTC

encryptluks2 wrote: post #41

meerita wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vague claim. Show us what you posted. I have read anti-trump comments every day since the beginnings of Gab.

How am I supposed to show you what I posted when my account was banned? If I recall, it had something to do with being open to adopting QAnon and extremist Trump supporters kids once they were taken away from their parents because I thought they'd go full domestic terrorist after he lost the election. I guess I was right afterall.

[deleted]