A false flag, I guess 
5 Likes
Lol. like the left never eats its own
2 Likes
I’m constantly surprised by people who should be smarter advocating for censorship.
Just because alt-right advocates USE their platform doesn’t make them an alt right platform.
I find the cartoon above posted by @Melz2 to be a false equivalent. The internet is NOT a megaphone. A better analogy is that the internet is a LIBRARY. Nobody is forcing you to read anything on the internet. And even racist fucktards should have the right to publish their works. Free speech in this country is being diluted by people who think its a good idea to suppress peoples ideas and opinions. It’s all fine and dandy when your opinion is in the majority. The slippery slope is who decides what ideas are worthy of publishing. And trusting the majority opinion in that circumstance has proven to be highly unjust. At one point racists were the majority, and this same sort of thing was used to suppress minority viewpoints.
Advocating genocide isn’t “an idea” or “difference of opinion”.
It’s an open threat.
The majority opinion is that we don’t tolerate threats like that.
You can cram that free speech argument. If I run some private hosting, nazis don’t have a right to use it against my will.
Same goes here.
A better analogy is this: The internet is a mall, both the space the stores are in, and the stores themselves are all privately owned. And if you invent some kind of automated HIV needlejabber machine, and spencers won’t stock it, and Gap won’t stock it, and hey even the mall ninja cheap katana and pepperspray emporium won’t stock it, your rights haven’t been violated. It’s just you’ve come up with something nobody wants, so they don’t do business with you.
30 Likes
Threats of genocide and murder are not ideas worthy of publishing.
22 Likes
The line between free speech and censorship is a blurry one, nazis are nowhere near said line however.
14 Likes
They can still publish their works, just not on Gab. Just like if you wrote a shit book, no one is FORCED to print it. You can always print it yourself. Depending on what it is, you can publish it digitally, or have a vanity house publish it. But if it is really vile, you may not find a place like that and would have to invest in the equipment to make it yourself.
Refusal of service is nothing new and is part of the free market. That is based on what they are doing, how they are behaving; not just who they are - that is discrimination.
So for example, being refused to be seated at a restaurant because you have no shirt on is a perfectly legit reason to refuse someone service. Refusing to seat them because they are black isn’t.
18 Likes
Figuring out what is good or bad should NOT be that difficult. We cannot be mute witnesses of verbal abuse masked as opinions. If a person is willing to say horrific things about other races/sexes/classes, things that were clearly meant to hurt, then we should reserve the right to say no to that and ask for accountability. Should be ban that kind of rhetoric? if you asked me, I would say yes. And I really don’t give two shits if some racist comes up to me and says, Well, you are impeding on my free speech. Fuck you and your free speech, jackass!
2 Likes
The first amendment covers government censorship. The government has taken no action here.
Businesses making business decisions to not associate with Gab is just the miracle of the marketplace in action. Why do you hate capitalism?
27 Likes
Just run off a pamphlet a Kinko’s called “WHY I HAET TEH JOOZ” and put it on the shelf at your local library. See how long it stays up there.
Libraries are run by librarians, not Nazi trollies.
20 Likes
9 Likes
People like to throw around the word genocide, as if I am so naive as to not understand its implication. I am the descendant of genocide survivors who fled ottoman turkey during the Armenian genocide.
I understand the argument of the private ownership scenario you put forward. The difference is outside parties interfered with Gab’s ability to decide that they would not censor any content. It’s one thing to say, “I disagree with this policy, so I will not use their service”. It is another thing entirely to harass their hosting providers into dropping their service. To me, regardless of the specifics equates to censorship.
To a court; it does not.
14 Likes
And as far as I am concerned a domain provider revoking a DNS zone and releasing it to the general public is outright theft on top of censorship.
Except no court ordered the seizure of their services.
When you’re Empress of the world; you’ll get to decide what the law is.
14 Likes
A court can’t authorize what a private business does that is legal. It’s not within their authority to approve or deny the action.
13 Likes
And if you want to debate what is or is not free speech, we have a whole thread for that.
22 Likes
Yeah, they call themselves names like ‘the Proud Boys’ and ‘the American Freedom Party,’ and ‘the White Aryan Resistance’, and they are known hate groups.
Luckily, the universe doesn’t revolve around you or your questionable perception.
Unless I’m mistaken, you are the very same member who once defended sexual harassment with the vapid question “how is someone supposed to know if you want to fuck them unless you ask?”
16 Likes
