You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Free Speech, the Gab/Andrew Torba way
October 22 2021 5.54pm

Free Speech, the Gab/Andrew Torba way

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 4 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >

 

View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 23 Sep 21 7.21pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

He doesn't want anyone prosecuted for their beliefs but if they break a law he does.

So in other words whatever the law says regardless of what your religion is you have to obey.

That's fine if the law doesn't seek to step on toes. As Jesus is meant to have said, 'Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's'.

It's the basis of the west's separation of church and state.

Seems to me that WE just wants Gab restricted and is willing to defend any old crap motive to that end.

More waffles than Tescos.....just the same rolling trolling.

Edited by Stirlingsays (23 Sep 2021 7.25pm)

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View BlueJay's Profile BlueJay Flag UK 23 Sep 21 7.45pm Send a Private Message to BlueJay Add BlueJay as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle


It only becomes one if they decide to ignore any laws that conflict with their personal viewpoint and act unlawfully.

The appropriate balance should be both adhering to the law of the land (in this case the US) and yet also providing platforms for free speech. A celebration of the dismantling of entire platforms due to who they attract could be short lived as governments are less worried about what is said, and more about the extent of what powers they can exert. What they take they rarely return, and in the big picture that is as if not more concerning than anything isolated nutters could conjure up (think a China censorship and social credits type existence). Gab hand over info when someone legitimately breaks the law; that is better than pushing concerning types underground and I can see in a way why he'd be frustrated at doing all he can but still facing these issues.

Sure if there's a way to easily block certain content specifically in Germany that goes against German law than that is a possible solution. But if that isn't doable then Germany will have to decide on a solution to this themselves, as it becomes ludicrous for a website to have to simultaneously adhere to the laws of every country in the world. That's all but impossible.


Edited by BlueJay (23 Sep 2021 7.47pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 23 Sep 21 10.52pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

He doesn't want anyone prosecuted for their beliefs but if they break a law he does.

So in other words whatever the law says regardless of what your religion is you have to obey.

That's fine if the law doesn't seek to step on toes. As Jesus is meant to have said, 'Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's'.

It's the basis of the west's separation of church and state.

Seems to me that WE just wants Gab restricted and is willing to defend any old crap motive to that end.

More waffles than Tescos.....just the same rolling trolling.

Edited by Stirlingsays (23 Sep 2021 7.25pm)

Are you seriously suggesting that someone can use their religious belief as a justification to break the law and not be prosecuted as a consequence?

Just think of the implications of that, because what is permitted for one is permitted for all.

It's total nonsense. It also has nothing to do with the separation of church and state, which is a philosophical political covenant that says that the state won't interfere in how a church is run, and the church won't interfere in how the state is run. It does not mean that church members are isolated from state law. All citizens are. Some churches, for instance the Roman Catholics, define canon law, but that's all they do, and it's restricted solely to church matters.

I don't want Gab "restricted". I want all social media platforms to obey the law and to behave responsibly. I want them to co-operate with government to eliminate things that are found, by a generally accepted consensus, to be dangerous to others. That consensus not being established either by government or the companies themselves, but by a respected independent watchdog.

I realise the downside, but the alternative of not doing something is worse, in my view, than in doing it. We are in a new era which demands new thinking on an international scale.

There is a great deal more at stake here than just the plaything of an American Christian fundamentalist, whose motivations are becoming increasingly questionable.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 23 Sep 21 11.09pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by BlueJay

The appropriate balance should be both adhering to the law of the land (in this case the US) and yet also providing platforms for free speech. A celebration of the dismantling of entire platforms due to who they attract could be short lived as governments are less worried about what is said, and more about the extent of what powers they can exert. What they take they rarely return, and in the big picture that is as if not more concerning than anything isolated nutters could conjure up (think a China censorship and social credits type existence). Gab hand over info when someone legitimately breaks the law; that is better than pushing concerning types underground and I can see in a way why he'd be frustrated at doing all he can but still facing these issues.

Sure if there's a way to easily block certain content specifically in Germany that goes against German law than that is a possible solution. But if that isn't doable then Germany will have to decide on a solution to this themselves, as it becomes ludicrous for a website to have to simultaneously adhere to the laws of every country in the world. That's all but impossible.


Edited by BlueJay (23 Sep 2021 7.47pm)

Determining who has legal jurisdiction in the internet era is one of the major issues. It's a parallel problem to where tax ought to be levied. In the country where the trade occurs, or where the supplier is domiciled? I see this becoming a huge source of international dispute in the future, which won't easily be reconciled.

Driving bad actors underground is a risk, but at least there they won't be so easily found by the impressionable, and in some ways it would make the job of the security community easier. Smaller numbers being easier to monitor.

Controlling content purely on political grounds, as China does, is not acceptable and not what I am arguing for. I want to see obvious misinformation that ignores established scientific consensus to be the target for action. I want to see things that harm people being removed.

Germany can block the IPs, but we all know that can easily be circumnavigated with a VPN. Co-operation and a willingness to behave responsibly is much better, but when one party is actively resisting that, then things get could get messy.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 24 Sep 21 12.51am Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

I had to laugh, Sikhs refused to wear helmet on motorbikes and the law was changed to accommodate them.

Also, the Christian bakery who refused to bake a cake and ice it with 'support gay marriage' on it eventually won the day in court.....however if they hadn't had the religious aspect they wouldn't have.

Once again made silly by his own words.

People break laws all the time for principles, religious or not.....when homosexuality was illegal for example....I can imagine the social conservative version of WE making this argument of adherence to the law despite any personal convictions......This way very little would ever really change.

As for the rest of the waffle, it's characterised by that manipulation of wordplay....stating one thing before seemingly contradicting it.

I can't be bothered.

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View becky's Profile becky Flag over the moon 24 Sep 21 8.59am Send a Private Message to becky Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add becky as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Are you seriously suggesting that someone can use their religious belief as a justification to break the law and not be prosecuted as a consequence?


How many of certain faiths have been prosecuted for bigamy, even when when the local authority has been obliged to provide a second home for the second wife and children?

Last time I looked, bigamy (the offence of marrying someone while already married to another person) under English Law was simply passed off as 'polyandry' under someone else's culture - and ignored.

 


A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers

Alert Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 24 Sep 21 9.05am Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

I had to laugh, Sikhs refused to wear helmet on motorbikes and the law was changed to accommodate them.

Also, the Christian bakery who refused to bake a cake and ice it with 'support gay marriage' on it eventually won the day in court.....however if they hadn't had the religious aspect they wouldn't have.

Once again made silly by his own words.

People break laws all the time for principles, religious or not.....when homosexuality was illegal for example....I can imagine the social conservative version of WE making this argument of adherence to the law despite any personal convictions......This way very little would ever really change.

As for the rest of the waffle, it's characterised by that manipulation of wordplay....stating one thing before seemingly contradicting it.

I can't be bothered.

You need to actually read what I write and not make assumptions born out of your prejudices. Rather than making me look "silly" you really ought to reflect on how ridiculous this makes you look, to anyone with the eyes to see it.

No-where have I said that people aren't free to break the law. As you point out, they can, and they do, and changes to the law can sometimes result. That's a matter of conscience. What I have said is that no-one is above the law and insulated from prosecution. Those cake makers were prosecuted, and in the event they were found (very wrongly in my own view) not guilty. They were though subject to the law. As were the Sikhs who refused to wear helmets. That their disobedience campaign resulted in the law being changed is another issue. The law of the time applied to them just as much as it did to everyone else.

What you have tried to do is a regular tactic of yours. Deflection from the actual issue. Andrew Torba can break the law if he chooses to, but he is as subject to it as everyone else. It doesn't seem to me as though he accepts this is the position and believes that "God's law" is superior. Which is a defence which has failed in the past.

My original question wasn't whether people could break the law if they chose to, or not. It was:-

"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?"

So is it wise, give the context of today's world?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 24 Sep 21 9.11am Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by becky

How many of certain faiths have been prosecuted for bigamy, even when when the local authority has been obliged to provide a second home for the second wife and children?

Last time I looked, bigamy (the offence of marrying someone while already married to another person) under English Law was simply passed off as 'polyandry' under someone else's culture - and ignored.

With all due respect, this is another issue. Doubtless very important and deserving of debate, but unconnected to this one. Maybe a new topic?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Badger11's Profile Badger11 Flag Beckenham 24 Sep 21 9.17am Send a Private Message to Badger11 Add Badger11 as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

You need to actually read what I write and not make assumptions born out of your prejudices. Rather than making me look "silly" you really ought to reflect on how ridiculous this makes you look, to anyone with the eyes to see it.

No-where have I said that people aren't free to break the law. As you point out, they can, and they do, and changes to the law can sometimes result. That's a matter of conscience. What I have said is that no-one is above the law and insulated from prosecution. Those cake makers were prosecuted, and in the event they were found (very wrongly in my own view) not guilty. They were though subject to the law. As were the Sikhs who refused to wear helmets. That their disobedience campaign resulted in the law being changed is another issue. The law of the time applied to them just as much as it did to everyone else.

What you have tried to do is a regular tactic of yours. Deflection from the actual issue. Andrew Torba can break the law if he chooses to, but he is as subject to it as everyone else. It doesn't seem to me as though he accepts this is the position and believes that "God's law" is superior. Which is a defence which has failed in the past.

My original question wasn't whether people could break the law if they chose to, or not. It was:-

"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?"

So is it wise, give the context of today's world?

Wow.

They were targetted by gay activists they were quite happy to produce a cake for anyone just not the pro gay marriage message. This case was about whose rights were being infringed.

The court correctly decided that the gay person did not have the right to insist that the bakers put a message they could not agree with.

If the court had upheld the decision it could mean for instance that a Muslim or black baker could be forced to produce a cake with something they felt offensive on.

FYI Peter Tatchell the gay rights activist agreed with the court decision as he could see the wider implications. This was never about "get out your gay I'm not serving you".

 


One more point

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View becky's Profile becky Flag over the moon 24 Sep 21 9.23am Send a Private Message to becky Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add becky as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

With all due respect, this is another issue. Doubtless very important and deserving of debate, but unconnected to this one. Maybe a new topic?

Maybe, but it does refute your point as to whether "someone can use their religious belief as a justification to break the law and not be prosecuted as a consequence?"

Polygamy is against the Law in this country, but is not only ignored when practiced by certain people, but actively supported, in many cases, by the provision of social housing.

 


A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers

Alert Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Badger11's Profile Badger11 Flag Beckenham 24 Sep 21 9.26am Send a Private Message to Badger11 Add Badger11 as a friend

Originally posted by becky

Maybe, but it does refute your point as to whether "someone can use their religious belief as a justification to break the law and not be prosecuted as a consequence?"

Polygamy is against the Law in this country, but is not only ignored when practiced by certain people, but actively supported, in many cases, by the provision of social housing.

And benefits.

 


One more point

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 24 Sep 21 9.34am Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

The guy is pathologically dishonest.

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 4 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Free Speech, the Gab/Andrew Torba way