Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gab.com’s Response to Congress

news.gab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 254 posts

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#101

Post by mc32 »

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.

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.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#102

Post by otterley »

mc32 wrote: post #83
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sunlight is the best disinfectant when it comes to freedom of speech, but that does not imply the government should have full access to the communication of individuals and trounce the fourth amendment Congress isn't claiming full access. It's asking Gab to preserve certain information while it goes through due process. You have a right to free speech, and the government has the right to investigate persons who thr…

I think they have a right to ask for specific information on specific individuals via court order but not a dragnet. Remember when Quest was the Only one to buck the Bush admin for access to its logs and everyone else just bent over because mumble terrorism mumble?

The legal discovery process actually is a dragnet. The major operational difference is that discovery is responsive — that is, you turn over the records yourself - vs. a search warrant, where law enforcement comes in and searches everything within its scope.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#103

Post by gruez »

hellcow wrote: post #91
mc32 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>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?

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#104

Post by JumpCrisscross »

mc32 wrote: post #101
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

> 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.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#105

Post by prvc »

drewrv wrote: post #39
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 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?

Yesterday. After that, last week, easier; then last year, yet easier; 5 years ago, easier still, and so on. I will not speculate as to when the maximum was reached, but it was somewhere between the creation of the internet and the present.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#106

Post by mc32 »

hellcow wrote: post #91
mc32 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is getting very Stalin-esque. Sure, you have many rights in the constitution, but if you actually exercise them then you suffer unwritten consequences. The Soviet constitution granted citizens more rights then the US constitution does us, but it was just worthless promises.

I can't believe people don't see the similarity and are willingly going down this path. It's so blindingly obvious that it's the same tactic used in Stalinism, Maoism and McCarthyism but people gleefully want to wrap their arms around it.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#107

Post by happytoexplain »

kypro wrote: post #61
pauldavis wrote: post #36

Wow, look at the previous post on that site, from the same guy: "They are rigging elections, they are botching troop withdrawals to flood western countries with refugees, the American border is being invaded by hundreds of thousands of people, they are buying up single family homes and pricing you out of the market, they are printing endless money and inflating your currency."

Eh, I also hate it when people have differing opinions to myself. Someone should really do something about this.

Should nobody face criticism? The parent didn't imply the user should be banned.

The "you hate people for having a different opinion than you" accusation seems to be disproportionately levied against left-ish or anti-Trump sentiment, but pro-Trump sentiment is disproportionately in the flavor of "hating you for having a different opinion", in my opinion.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#108

Post by aww_dang »

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.

Agreed, but that isn't a rationalization of the walled garden or proof that the Internet couldn't have continued to grow without the model imposed by "platforms".

To the contrary, the Internet was still growing by leaps and bounds. I propose that the Internet had reached a point where vested interests needed to capture it to maintain control of the narrative.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#109

Post by lvass »

bambax wrote: post #87

> we believe – as Justice Brandeis did – that “sunlight is the best disinfectant, electric light the most efficient policeman.” Not true. There is no evidence that electric light helps deter crime (and of course sunlight is not a disinfectant either). https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:33WBZA...

Sunlight does inactivate infectious agents, like SARS-CoV-2[0]. There are studies suggesting street lighting is a crime deterrent such as[1].

[0]https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/222/2/214/5841129

[1]https://www.nber.org/papers/w25798

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#110

Post by rvcamo »

pauldavis wrote: post #36

Wow, look at the previous post on that site, from the same guy: "They are rigging elections, they are botching troop withdrawals to flood western countries with refugees, the American border is being invaded by hundreds of thousands of people, they are buying up single family homes and pricing you out of the market, they are printing endless money and inflating your currency."

Where is the lie?
Post reply on HN