Free Speech, the Gab/Andrew Torba way
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
  Wisbech Eagle  Truro Cornwall 21 Sep 21 10.12pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
I subscribe to Gab's emails and keep an eye on their site, making the occasional comment. Today I received this missive:- Whilst I am pretty sure a couple of regular posters will agree wholeheartedly with everything that Torba writes, I wonder what others think? Do you think Germany has a "tyrannical" government? Do you think because a company is based in the USA they can, or even ought to, ignore the laws of other countries, if they offer their services there? Or are, in the internet age, companies free to ignore laws they don't like? Do you think "fake news" is whatever a Government says it is, or is it demonstrable untruths which are considered dangerous by elected representatives? Do you think that the appeals to God as the ultimate authority, and justification, is wise, given that there are echoes of the reasoning used by extremists of other faiths to be heard? Should unrestricted free speech exist online, or should companies be expected to respond to complaints of dangerous misinformation and, having verified the transgression, remove them from their platforms? In our increasingly borderless world, if individual countries are unable to determine what is acceptable, or not, who can?
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| Stirlingsays 21 Sep 21 10.33pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
It isn't Gab's or Torba's way, it's simply the first amendment.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 22 Sep 21 8.31am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
It isn't Gab's or Torba's way, it's simply the first amendment. Which is, like most things, capable of being understood in a variety of ways. There is an industry of first amendment scholars opining on these matters In any case, there is a great deal more than just the US Constitution involved here. The world has moved on quite a long way since 1791. Torba expresses opinions on many issues. The first amendment says he is free to express them, but not to force others to agree with him. I asked if people did, or not. Not whether he has the freedom to express his own.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 22 Sep 21 8.54am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Which is, like most things, capable of being understood in a variety of ways. There is an industry of first amendment scholars opining on these matters In any case, there is a great deal more than just the US Constitution involved here. The world has moved on quite a long way since 1791. Torba expresses opinions on many issues. The first amendment says he is free to express them, but not to force others to agree with him. I asked if people did, or not. Not whether he has the freedom to express his own. I don't see an issue here. If they don't wish to comply with German law that is their right. It is the right of the German government to block their site if they believe it contravenes German law.
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 22 Sep 21 9.26am |
|
|---|---|
|
Thinking that the first amendment is going to be altered is about as realistic as thinking Mitt Romney had/has a chance of the Republican leadership. That said, I would rather like it if the Democrats tried or actually could put Trump in jail as this guy also wants. It would speed up the separation of the US....something I predicted years ago and which appears to still be well on course. Anyway for now, this desire for leftist authoritarianism on free speech will have to wait. I will add though that when this guy was red carded on this platform I was personally messaged by one of his chief 'fans' over the ban (I don't know why as I have no power or influence with mods). I won't divulge the person or the details other than the fact that an appeal to 'free speech' was paramount. So I find the tenor of this thread on the desired restricting of free speech for others somewhat ironic. Edited by Stirlingsays (22 Sep 2021 9.28am)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 22 Sep 21 10.29am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Thinking that the first amendment is going to be altered is about as realistic as thinking Mitt Romney had/has a chance of the Republican leadership. That said, I would rather like it if the Democrats tried or actually could put Trump in jail as this guy also wants. It would speed up the separation of the US....something I predicted years ago and which appears to still be well on course. Anyway for now, this desire for leftist authoritarianism on free speech will have to wait. I will add though that when this guy was red carded on this platform I was personally messaged by one of his chief 'fans' over the ban (I don't know why as I have no power or influence with mods). I won't divulge the person or the details other than the fact that an appeal to 'free speech' was paramount. So I find the tenor of this thread on the desired restricting of free speech for others somewhat ironic. Edited by Stirlingsays (22 Sep 2021 9.28am) Why on earth do you imagine I think, or even want, the first amendment to be altered? That's for the Americans to determine, and as there is plenty of scope already available in its interpretation, it seems unlikely. This has almost nothing to do with the first amendment, other than in Torba's mind and those of his fan base, like you. It has absolutely nothing to do with Trump's situation directly. His only connection is that he is still able to use Torba's platform to spread "alternative facts". Aka lies. It is actually also nothing to do with left or right politics, although the right appear to believe it is. This has much more to do with whether and how a country, acting with the authority of its people via their elected representatives, can ensure they create a safe and responsible environment for their people. That's not authoritarianism at all. It's democracy. I have argued many times totally unrestricted free speech in a democracy is a myth. It doesn't exist and never has. As soon as laws are written, some restrictions exist. Only anarchists can genuinely argue for unrestricted free speech. That's not a "leftist" desire at all. It's just a mark of democracy, which imposes responsibilities alongside rights. I was briefly "red carded" through a misunderstanding, which was quickly corrected. Being able to freely exchange views in a democracy is an essential and precious right. So long as it is done responsibly and causes no harm to others. Which is why you can think whatever you like, and freely express it in private. Do so elsewhere, and some laws apply because you don't own that space. We all do. The Germans own theirs. It's going to be interesting.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 22 Sep 21 10.51am |
|
|---|---|
|
This guy is an exercise in the abuse of words. Anyway I'll leave him to his waffle.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
ASCPFC  Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 22 Sep 21 12.08pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Germans banning words they don't like. I almost feel like it may have happened before sometime. Anyway, as it's them, I'm sure it'll all be fine.
Red and Blue Army! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 22 Sep 21 1.28pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by ASCPFC
Germans banning words they don't like. I almost feel like it may have happened before sometime. Anyway, as it's them, I'm sure it'll all be fine. It's not words that are the issue here. It's the idea that demonstrably incorrect and dangerous misinformation can be circulated without any kind of checks and balances. If lies can be presented as truths often enough, then they start to be believed by those susceptible to such things. In the internet age this can have profound implications for all of us. Of course, it needs to be supervised and managed effectively with transparent oversight subject to constant review and challenge. In my view it isn't though that a line needs to be drawn but only where it needs to be. Edited by Wisbech Eagle (22 Sep 2021 1.29pm)
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 22 Sep 21 1.34pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
This guy is an exercise in the abuse of words. Anyway I'll leave him to his waffle. Just in case anyone needs that translating, what it really means is as that he has no answers to the actual questions asked he will revert to his standard modus operandi of personal insult.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 22 Sep 21 2.19pm |
|
|---|---|
|
I've answered all those questions many times. The first amendment answers most of it and your 'interpretation' waffle answer on that explains why no one actually interested in freedom is going to feel this is a good faith argument.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
BlueJay  UK 22 Sep 21 3.32pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Each country should set their own laws, so websites within that territory should adhere to said laws. As much as countries need to work together where there are significant concerns (terror and abuse related for instance), in a wider sense it would be unworkable for a website to have to adhere to the laws of every single country on the planet. Sometimes to an extent websites can be locally catered I'm sure (possibly a sensible option with social networks like twitter etc), but in the big picture with smaller sites it's better to force countries to block sites they're unhappy with as it speaks to their interest, or lack of, in 'freedom of speech' as well as the laws of that particular territory. Good to know where you stand on both counts.. Also whoever PMd to bring Wisbech back, it certainly wasn't me. I did however at the time publicly comment about how sudden red cards out of nowhere without any explanation is not great for freedom of speech yes. Being that he was reinstated, there would seem to have been something to that view.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.