why is this flagged?
Gab.com’s Response to Congress
171–180 of 254 posts
Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress
#172> 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…
> 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.
Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress
#173why is this flagged?
gab platform is fairly pro far-right, as is the founder. HN crowd is susceptible to tribalism just like any other group.
Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
what's more civil than peacefully protesting?
Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
What is your evidence that the Supreme Court majority is "radically anti-Free Speech"?
Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reading the first couple of sentences, it looks like Contempt of Congress applies only if you ignore a subpoena. It doesn't appear that Congress used subpoena powers (I may be wrong in this assumption) for this request, and Gab's reply to their request for information was optional. Of course, Gab understands that to ignore the request altogether would have left them open to further harassment by the government, and t…
This sort of request is the nice way of saying that a subpoena is forthcoming, so don't you dare lose anything. If, in a month or two, the subpoena comes they can't respond with "oops! We had no idea we were supposed to keep those documents."
The response is more saying, “we don’t review or classify misinformation at all so don’t ask us about how we moderate it.” Subpoena or not the response would be the same.
Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
what's more civil than peacefully protesting?
Radical anti-abortionists also harass and intimidate people (while "peacefully" protesting,) bomb abortion clinics and kill doctors.
That's probably what mc32 is referring to.
Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
what's more civil than peacefully protesting?
presumably they are talking about the ones that "peacefully" scream "murderer" at people in an already stressful and emotionally painful situation. Legal, yes. Civil? ehh....
Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
The government has a monopoly on force. There are plenty of reasons to be afraid of it.
No, my friend. It does not. The citizens have gun rights and we have a LOT of guns. And if you think millions with rifles and handguns can't stop the US government, you've not been paying attention to what happened in Afghanistan.
The government has the monopoly on the legal system allowing you to use the guns. Afghanistan only worked because of complete lack of government.
Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress
#180Contrary to their claim, I believe they do keep records. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/11/gab-hack-neo-n...
If you don’t classify misinformation, you can’t give information on it. It actually makes total sense.