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

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#111

Post by mc32 » Thu, Sep 02, 2021, 2:24 PM UTC

gruez wrote: post #103

hellcow wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>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. So you'd be fine if amazon refused to serve you because you're a pro-union sympathizer, right?

Oh, no! No, that's different. That... that... Just do as I say, and we'll all be okay, I know the right path, follow me to perdition.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#112

Post by criley2 » Thu, Sep 02, 2021, 2:24 PM UTC

simiones wrote: post #92

criley2 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bee…

I think you made a similar mistake in your thought process with "public forums" which almost always took place in private places, like churches, clubs, etc. It's not a given that public forums were on government property, and most local governments couldn't afford large meeting spaces.

The idea that every government and "public" forum in American history was government land is crazy to me. People weren't going into the courthouse to have friendly debates. They were in inns, bars, churches, etc. I would wager the vast majority of all "public forums" you refer to happened in a private location.

Thus this isn't some unprecedented scenario, as the church has controlled public speech in all but the biggest of towns in this manner for our entire history.

I'm reminded of the Red Scare where socialists and communist sympathizers could not meet because all the meeting spaces were private and they were banned from meeting there. So much for historical public forums! What few private forums were available were targeted by the government and its sympathizers for shutdown, violence or worse.

Imagine putting the government that ran the red scare IN CHARGE OF what constitutes free speech and who can publish what.

>We will need to invent a new concept of how such communication should be regulated and moderated.

No thanks, I like Free Speech and Liberty and we never need to invent a new way for the government of the day to control speech.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#113

Post by ohgodplsno » Thu, Sep 02, 2021, 2:25 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?

From the state ? Most likely none, unless you are actively calling for harm, rebellion, terrorism, things like that.

From individuals ? I would be more than happy to punch you for preaching nazi rethoric, for example, and so would thousands of us.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#114

Post by arp242 » Thu, Sep 02, 2021, 2:25 PM UTC

gruez wrote: post #93

arp242 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"?

When it's presented as a near-existential threat then I think it's important to keep some perspective, and it clarifies that "free speech absolutism" has never been a particular common or popular stance.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#115

Post by mc32 » Thu, Sep 02, 2021, 2:28 PM UTC

ohgodplsno wrote: post #113

mc32 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

From the state ? Most likely none, unless you are actively calling for harm, rebellion, terrorism, things like that. From individuals ? I would be more than happy to punch you for preaching nazi rethoric, for example, and so would thousands of us.

I think we can all agree we vehemently disagree with people who threaten our existence. We still do not have a right to inflict physical violence upon those who are voicing their opinions, no matter how vile they are. Now, of course you may be rightfully upset and unwind, but that is not a protected right.

If you disagree with the above, I'm afraid it's a misunderstanding of the intentions of the first amendment to the US constitution.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#116

Post by josephcsible » Thu, Sep 02, 2021, 2:29 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…

> 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.

You don't think there should be a difference between platforms and publishers?

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#117

Post by josephcsible » Thu, Sep 02, 2021, 2:29 PM UTC

simiones wrote: post #92

criley2 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bee…

> 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.

Last year they were outlawed.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#118

Post by Workaccount2 » Thu, Sep 02, 2021, 2:30 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #99

aww_dang wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

It's weird to think back to a decade or 15 years ago where it was shameful to be an "internet addict". Spending a lot of time online was generally frowned upon, and not something you would talk about.

Now the entirety of society is an "internet addict". I'll admit the nerd inside me feels a bit vindicated, even if horrified overall with where the internet has taken us.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#119

Post by gruez » Thu, Sep 02, 2021, 2:31 PM UTC

ohgodplsno wrote: post #113

mc32 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

From the state ? Most likely none, unless you are actively calling for harm, rebellion, terrorism, things like that. From individuals ? I would be more than happy to punch you for preaching nazi rethoric, for example, and so would thousands of us.

>From individuals ? I would be more than happy to punch you for preaching nazi rethoric, for example, and so would thousands of us.

Isn't that literally terrorism?

>The deliberate commission of an act of violence to create public fear through the suffering of the victims in the furtherance of a political or social agenda.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#120

Post by mc32 » Thu, Sep 02, 2021, 2:32 PM UTC

neurobashing wrote: post #95

mc32 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I would agree with the above.

I don't like radical anti-abortionists who camp out at abortion clinics, but I recognize we all have this right. I wish they would pursue their goals more civilly, they would likely get some sympathy if they were humane about it, for example.