Fascist social network Gab forced to shut down

Post Reply New Topic

Wow. I can't believe that there are posts in this thread asserting that tech companies are silencing right leaning voters. Tech companies, and people in general, don't care if you support right wing political beliefs about government and taxes. They're silencing Alt-Right, aka Neo Nazi, hate speech. There's a big difference. I personally applaud every effort anyone makes to wipe this hate speech BS off of the internet/tv/radio/print media etc.

Legally, yes. Personally, no.

I did not stop a co-worker from wearing his neo-nazi patches on his company-supplied work jacket. I merely pointed out that he was in violation of company rules that prohibit anyone from displaying political and religious slogans on company property. It was HE who declared "MY Freedom of Speech or I quit!"

I don't think that anyone misses him...

... both of our countries have laws against hate speech/hate crimes.

You really think that neo nazi white supremacists should be allowed to run amok spreading their hatred in the name of freedom of speech?

"Legally, yes." How so? Afaik, both of our countries have laws against hate speech/hate crimes.

From today’s opinion by Justice Samuel Alito (for four justices) in Matal v. Tam, the “Slants” case:

[The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote separately, also for four justices, but on this point the opinions agreed:

A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an “egregious form of content discrimination,” which is “presumptively unconstitutional.” … A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.

And the justices made clear that speech that some view as racially offensive is protected not just against outright prohibition but also against lesser restrictions.

The United States Supreme Court today ruled that KKK member Barry Black could not be convicted of a crime under Virginia's cross-burning statute because of the law's unconstitutional presumption that all cross-burning is intended to intimidate. However, the court upheld the other main provision of the law, which allows the banning of cross-burning when it can be shown that its purpose it to intimidate others.

"This is a mixed bag of a decision about a fairly narrow aspect of the law," said Kent Willis, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia. "We are pleased that the court reaffirmed free speech by making it clear that cross-burning, when it is not used as a direct threat, is protected by the Constitution."

Black, who set fire to a cross on a private farm in Carroll County, had permission from the owner of the farm to use the area for a KKK rally and to ignite a cross as part of the ceremony. The ACLU of Virginia has provided legal representation to Black since the incident in 1999.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gab_(social_network)

I guess the one good thing is that all of these crazies are in one place and law enforcement can keep tabs on them vs. them going underground on the dark web making it more difficult to track and monitor their crazy.