Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Recommended Posts

Parson, thanks for your great insight.   Wait for the facts is the way to go.   And thanks for the free advice counselor. :)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I left Facebook, never was on Twitter. Dropped Chrome and Explorer for Brave. Dropped Google for DuckDuckGo. Social media may be crap but it is very influential in shaping the culture and politics is

And what makes anyone think that Parler, MeWe, Gab, etc. won't turn into the same crap that Faceplant and Twitter have now? They will and it'll happen quicly.

I don’t think Parler will. They’re getting people like crazy coming from Twitter and Facebook because conservative voices are allowed. I believe they’ll thrive and prosper because they’re different.

I call "Foul" by PR.... the use of the word "tantalogical" on this cowboy forum is totally uncalled for! I say he is only half right.

 

Snakebite:ph34r:

 

  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Snakebite said:

I call "Foul" by PR.... the use of the word "tantalogical" on this cowboy forum is totally uncalled for! I say he is only half right.

 

Snakebite:ph34r:

 


bingo!  You win! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does SASS not permit political speech in the Wire and the Saloon...or at least when it starts to heat up?

 

You could call it a denial of 'free speech', which it is; remember 'free speech' as a concept encompasses more than the US First Amendment. Many Western countries enjoy rights of free speech, and they don't have the US Constitution. And I can stop you from disrupting my dinner party with rants, which certainly restricts your 'free speech', but does not affect your Constitutional rights at all.

 

SASS doesn't allow it because long experience shows that some percentage of members will eventually engage in rude, offensive, and sometimes obscene, rants and raves. Nobody has to allow such stuff on private internet platforms, however big they may be. The practice of anonymity on the internet just makes it worse.

 

Don't want to get kicked off this place or that? Then moderate your speech, just like you did in public before the internet.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

A few thoughts . . .

 

First, everyone is entitled to their opinions.  There can be a cost to expressing those opinions, ranging from polite disagreement, to shunning, unemployment and a bloody nose and missing teeth.  In reality free speech is not free, there are costs; what we really mean by "free speech" is speech that certain powerful entities can only restrict in very rare instances.  The Supreme Court has tailored what is allowed as a restriction to narrow classes: treason; speech that calls for IMMINENT violence (if the call to arms is vague as to time it is seen as protected and political); and, child pornography about cover it.  The government can also very narrowly limit the time and place of speech, e.g., a parade permit or restricting demonstrations with in a certain distance from embassies or public buildings.  Such time and place restrictions cannot be based on the content of the speech or done in a manner that would prevent the public from hearing the message.

 

It should be apparent that despite the literal language of the First Amendment ("Congress shall make no laws . . ."), Congress and the States have passed a multitude of restrictions on speech, in large measure for the reasons Red has offered.  What the Courts do in examining these laws is balance the purpose behind the concept of Free Speech with maintaining order, with the facts in each case being critical.  Those facts lead to distinctions being drawn and to potentially differing results.  In Free Speech cases the concept of a market place of ideas, of allowing different opinions to compete for adherents, takes primacy in all but the rarest cases, and the only when there is a compelling government interest, such as protecting the right to life.

 

Second, it is important to understand the root of our right to Free Speech.  It does not flow from the government; it is not a privilege granted to us.  Rather, our rights flow naturally from our existence.  The Constitutions at the Federal and State levels serve not as grantors of rights, but as restrictions on governmental power to curtail those rights.  The government becomes involved in restricting Free Speech not only when it passes laws that directly act to ban communication, but also indirectly when a business seeks to stop speech on its premises and calls the police to remove the "speakers" as trespassers.  In the latter instance the Courts have given the nod to the property owner's competing right to privacy and control of their property - but, not always.

 

This brings us to the reasoning in the Pruneyard Shopping Center case.  The California Supreme Court held that the common areas of the Shopping Mall were public, much more analogous to sidewalks and streets than a private dwelling.  The stores in the Mall were a different matter; they were much more private and can restrict who enters and the conduct of those who are allowed to enter.  The Court reasoned that the value we receive from the market place of ideas through fee speech transcends in this narrow instance the property right of the Mall owner who did not truly have a privacy interest in the common areas of the Mall and the California Constitution protected this right.  Thus, the use of government agents - the Courts and police - to enforce a restriction on speech through trespass laws ran afoul of the State Constitution restriction on government interference in Free Speech.  In the forty years since the US Supreme Court affirmed the California Supreme Court some states have adopted this reasoning, e.g., Oregon and Massachusetts, with a few have rejected it and held private property rights can trump free speech, e.g., Wisconsin.

 

How does this apply to Parler?  It can easily be argued that AWS, and large Social Media operations such as Facebook, Twitter or internet providers like Yahoo and Google are in practice no different than the Mall.  They are public.  They allow virtually everyone in.  Once in, you can wander about and stay public or visit private sub sites, like the Facebook pages McCandles and others have set up.  The latter are much more private, with restrictions on who can enter, analogous to the stores within the Mall.  As such those private pages can regulate the content of the posts, but arguably AWS, Facebook, et. al, the Mall, cannot.

 

It is not a perfect comparison.  AWS, Apple, Google, etal., are not seeking the aid of the government in ousting Parker with trespass laws.  However, the  Pruneyard Shopping Center case went further, with the California Court holding that the students had a right to speak that was superior to the property right of the Mall owners. This meant that the Mall could not use private security to remove the students.  If this reasoning is followed it directly applies to the social media giants.  It is also of interest that the California Court used language comparing the Mall to a public utility, something the social media giants are even more akin to. 

 

As I first wrote, we are each entitled to our opinions.  You can opine that the owners of private property should have an unrestricted right to kick off anyone they want for any reason, and folks if they read the terms of service agreed to that when they joined.  Certainly, Wisconsin agrees with this.  Other states disagree.  In any case, Parler has a reasonable argument based on Free Speech.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

What is ironic is that they are reacting to a reportedly small number of posters on Parler and holding Parler responsible for the content of those posts. Yet companies like Google, Facebook, and Twitter all rely on not being held legally liable for the posts on their platforms through the section 230 exemption that gives them a pass by defining them as platforms and not content providers. One wonders if given the above case as they are defined in the law as platforms and not content providers if they are not violation of their exemption as they are acting like gatekeepers and shapers of content and not platforms. Interesting. We should know the answer in a decade or two once the cases go through court, unless they result in a settlement with a non-disclosure agreement.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/9/2021 at 7:23 AM, Buckshot Bob said:

MeWe is more like fb without the anti gun attacks. To me Parler is more like Twitter . 
MeWe has some great reloading groups without all the stupid fb problems 

 

Its good to see some competition the current monopoly is not good for the consumers 

I'm on MeWe too - and follow the SASS pages there that Jokers Wild started: https://mewe.com/group/5ab51e1b2fbc5476f0faca8c

 

The more platforms we're on, the more likely someone might find the hobby.  For me? I'm done with FB/Twit/IG etc. The complete wholesale tracking of your device (as well as any device that you're close to according to their Service agreement) and lack of privacy are my concerns. This fella' on YT summed it up fairly well for me: https://youtu.be/VhSX7IzHkrE

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m off Twitter, but still on FB.  I’m looking to switch to Gab.com, but it’s too crowded right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, South-Eye Ned said:

I’m off Twitter, but still on FB.  I’m looking to switch to Gab.com, but it’s too crowded right now.

A couple of people told me MeWe was running really slow tonight because of greatly increased traffic 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raylan said:

What is ironic is that they are reacting to a reportedly small number of posters on Parler and holding Parler responsible for the content of those posts. Yet companies like Google, Facebook, and Twitter all rely on not being held legally liable for the posts on their platforms through the section 230 exemption that gives them a pass by defining them as platforms and not content providers. 

 

Holding someone 'responsible' and holding them 'legally liable' are two totally separate things.

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619 said:

 

Holding someone 'responsible' and holding them 'legally liable' are two totally separate things.

Never asserted they were the same thing. But they are analgolus in the sense that there is a similar underlying moral principle. Holding someone or something responsible or legally liable both involve a moral principle by which parties are held accountable. Google, Facebook, and Twitter support the exemption that prevents them from being held accountable for the very thing they support holding Parler accountable for.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Does Parler enjoy the same 230 exemption or does it not? I don't claim to be an expert, but my guess is that it does. If so, it has the same legal protections as those tech companies do, and to the same degree.

 

I think that we have turned a lot of categories on their heads in the internet age. Before the internet, we were not anonymous. Our identities, our citizenship, our places of residence and of work were not secrets. But we were still free.

 

When we spoke up, in church, before the city council, at the Kiwanis or other service club, and in the public assembly, we stated our names, and then our views. If we wrote a letter  to the editor, we did it under our own name, and if we didn't, it wouldn't be printed. Yet our speech was free.

 

When we spoke or wrote under those circumstances, we moderated our speech, and refrained from insults, rants, personal attacks, foul talk, and threats. If we didn't we would be ignored, or ridiculed, or, if we persisted, ostracised and dismissed from the group. Our reputations and even our livelihoods would suffer. But the government would not and could not punish us and, accordingly, we were free.

 

That's the point: the legal right to free speech exists only vis a vis the government. It has never governed private forums, settings, or media. People try to work around that, to no avail. But why should they? Non-governmental organizations not only have the right to not give a forum to  the speech that always was disallowed in such forums in former times, but that's exactly what they should do. The internet has allowed the violation of these once well-understood norms long enough.

 

Edited by Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The crux is not a legal right to free speech. Politics exists downstream of culture. When cancel culture becomes the prevailing means of stifling other views or dissent and replaces debate or discussion with economic punishments, threats, and demonization or othering - it does not advance a free and just society - it advances a totalitarian and facist framework that destroys the social fabric. Persuasion and discussion get replaced with force and coercion. 

The principle that I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to my death your right to say it, (which was not about the first amendment but the underlying principle) is lost and replaced with sit down and shut up or I will have you banned and fired. 

Edited by Raylan
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619 said:

Does Parler enjoy the same 230 exemption or does it not? I don't claim to be an expert, but my guess is that it does. If so, it has the same legal protections as those tech companies do, and to the same degree.

 

 

 

 

 

I believe it does also . I think the problem is as soon as parler was viewed as a legitimate competitor google, apple and Amazon conspired to drive them out of business. They didn’t care what parler was doing until their usage skyrocketed . The terms of service is just a tool . There are many groups on fb and Twitter that constantly violate those same terms of service. They just cherry pick who they like and who they don’t 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Buckshot Bob said:

I believe it does also . I think the problem is as soon as parler was viewed as a legitimate competitor google, apple and Amazon conspired to drive them out of business. They didn’t care what parler was doing until their usage skyrocketed . The terms of service is just a tool . There are many groups on fb and Twitter that constantly violate those same terms of service. They just cherry pick who they like and who they don’t 


I don’t think so.  It’s a terms of agreement issue.  Parlor was warned multiple times and shown examples of what their users were saying.   I’ve seen some of the posts which were very violent.  Calling out certain people by name talking about firing squads.   
Parlor wouldn’t do anything about it so Amazon did.  Parlor is free to find another provider.   
what I saw wasn’t freedom of speech.  It was threats against people which is against the law as far as I can tell. 

Edited by Johnny Dollar
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Johnny Dollar said:


I don’t think so.  It’s a terms of agreement issue.  Parlor was warned multiple times and shown examples of what their users were saying.   I’ve seen some of the posts which were very violent.  Calling out certain people by name talking about firing squads.   
Parlor wouldn’t do anything about it so Amazon did.  Parlor is free to find another provider.   
what I saw wasn’t freedom of speech.  It was threats against people which is against the law as far as I can tell. 

I’ve seen multiple issues on fb and Twitter also , heck the Ayatollah Khamene has a Twitter account, it’s selective enforcement. And it’s been going on long before this , they just decided to enforce it when parlor started looking like a viable competitor. They were more than willing to take the money until Parlers popularity went up . They cherry pick the rules . And if anyone is threatening someone’s life that’s something law enforcement should be dealing with, not some social media platforms. They are just trying to control the narrative while squashing the competition. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Buckshot Bob said:

I’ve seen multiple issues on fb and Twitter also , heck the Ayatollah Khamene has a Twitter account, it’s selective enforcement. And it’s been going on long before this , they just decided to enforce it when parlor started looking like a viable competitor. They were more than willing to take the money until Parlers popularity went up . They cherry pick the rules . And if anyone is threatening someone’s life that’s something law enforcement should be dealing with, not some social media platforms. They are just trying to control the narrative while squashing the competition. 


and that’s what makes this country great.  You have your opinion and I have mine.   

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Johnny Dollar said:

and that’s what makes this country great.  You have your opinion and I have mine.

And if one's opinion goes against the prevailing narrative supported by big tech then one's opinion will be buried and one will be deplatformed and that doesn't make this country great. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Raylan said:

And if one's opinion goes against the prevailing narrative supported by big tech then one's opinion will be buried and one will be deplatformed and that doesn't make this country great. 

So you’re saying unless you subscribe to conspiracy theories you shouldn’t have an opinion?  Perfect.   I’m out.... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Johnny Dollar said:

So you’re saying unless you subscribe to conspiracy theories you shouldn’t have an opinion?  Perfect.   I’m out.... 

It's not conspiracy theories Its' really happening!! 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Johnny Dollar said:

So you’re saying unless you subscribe to conspiracy theories you shouldn’t have an opinion?  Perfect.   I’m out.... 

No, didn't say that or anything even close to that. Nowhere did I say one isn't entitled to an opinion in fact quite the opposite. That the issue is that many are being deplatformed, banned, and having their opinions and their ability to express them removed from the market place by big tech.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raylan said:

And if one's opinion goes against the prevailing narrative supported by big tech then one's opinion will be buried and one will be deplatformed and that doesn't make this country great. 

I guess I took it as JD and I can agree to disagree. 
and to me that is one of the things that makes this country great . 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Buckshot Bob said:

I’ve seen multiple issues on fb and Twitter also , heck the Ayatollah Khamene has a Twitter account, it’s selective enforcement. And it’s been going on long before this , they just decided to enforce it when parlor started looking like a viable competitor. They were more than willing to take the money until Parlers popularity went up . They cherry pick the rules . And if anyone is threatening someone’s life that’s something law enforcement should be dealing with, not some social media platforms. They are just trying to control the narrative while squashing the competition. 

 

All 'enforcement' at all times and places, is 'selective enforcement'.

 

If somebody is threatening somebody's life on an internet site, you take down the post and ban the poster. You don't wait for 'law enforcement'. Do you think your local LE agency can or will track down internet threats? There are probably millions of them a day, these days.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619 said:

 

All 'enforcement' at all times and places, is 'selective enforcement'.

 

If somebody is threatening somebody's life on an internet site, you take down the post and ban the poster. You don't wait for 'law enforcement'. Do you think your local LE agency can or will track down internet threats? There are probably millions of them a day, these days.

If law enforcement is not involved is someone really considering it a legitimate threat? I hear people say they should kill that sob all the time. And they never kill anyone. And if the threat is actually real taking it down and banning the poster is simply going to hide the problem and allow them to get away with the violence . 
Go on FB and read some posts on local news articles. I see people saying that politicians should be killed, tarred and feathered. Also that many of the people charged with crimes and the police that arrested them should be beat or killed . I see it all the time . And honestly it’s the same talk I’ve heard my entire life in bars and around work break tables. 
Terms of use is just a tool they use when it suits them 
Big tecs enforcement is pretty consistently selective towards anyone who doesn’t conform with their political beliefs or financial goals 

 

And no I don’t think the police are going to deal with every occurrence on the internet any more than they will deal with every case of domestic abuse or every bar brawl . 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a person should make all of the threats they want-- as long as they put their names to them. Just like the guys at the "bars and break tables".

 

And if they have to do that, then there'll be about 99% fewer of them on the internet...That would be a good thing.

Edited by Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I had my first post taken down or something of the like recently, all i did was share something someone had said that was basically, if you think the world is a bad place and are worried for your kids don't be, God has a plan for each one of them, just like He did for Daniel, Esther, etc.  it's gone, can't find it... people were really into that post too.  Oh, Well.  if you want info on the Legal issues with FB, Google and Twitter's insistence that they should have the same protections as AT&T, while maintaining the same censorship privileges as Goebbels, there are some good episodes on the Verdict Podcast with Ted Cruz.  We wouldn't tolerate AT&T or Verizon cutting into our phone conversation to fact check uncle Al's flat earth ramblings, and we don't sue AT&T when we pick up that scam call and send money to the prince in Nigeria.  FB, Google Twitter etc should either leave playing favoritism alone, or be subject to liable lawsuits just like everyone else.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I call the online rage with anonymity “cyber-balls”. Easy to talk when nobody knows who you are. 
 

but there’s no doubt that big tech is cracking down on those sites they don’t agree with. eBay/PayPal has consistently frozen accounts of those doing gun related transactions (mine was frozen for selling an “assault weapon accessory” aka an M56 pouch, and the booting of AR15.com and others just supports the unfair business practices- all things that can/will be brought up in legal proceedings to follow. 
 

Big tech needs to be broken up. Monopolies are never good for the regular person. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619 said:

I think a person should make all of the threats they want-- as long as they put their names to them. Just like the guys at the "bars and break tables".

 

And if they have to do that, then there'll be about 99% fewer of them on the internet...That would be a good thing.

Then maybe profiles need to be verified in certain areas. I’ve just never seen good results come from banning anything to do with speech/rights 
I don’t care for the views of the kkk or blm but I also don’t think suppressing either one of them is good or going to get us anywhere. 
The internet is the new town square or newspaper wether we like it or not . It’s here you can get on the train or get run over by it . 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/10/2021 at 12:57 PM, Raylan said:

CEO of Parler says they will be back up in a week after moving all their software and programing to another server as they did not rely on Amazon for anything other than server space. But they are definately badly hurt - losing access to people through the app stores for Google and Apple means they will lose a lot of potential new users as a lot of people want access through a one click app on their phone vs. using a browser. And being down for a week at least will probably lead to some people leaving as will rumors on the internet that "Parler is done."

 

So they aren't killed off, but they are badly damaged and their potential future growth has taken a severe hit. And I think that was the point to damage them now right when so many people were giving them a serious look and to damage their future growth by taking them off Google and Apple app stores. This was definately a coordinated hit job by big tech.

The CEO of Parler was on Tucker Carlson last night.  He said that many other web hosting Co's have turned down hosting Parler.  Parler has filed suit against Amazon Web Services in federal court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is appeal to the analogies of the internet with "the new town square or newspaper", and to telephone conversations, but they are far from exact.

 

Telephone conversations have always been private by their very nature. They generally require a court order to invade. Website and social media posts not only aren't private, and they aren't meant to be, though many folks want to keep their identities 'private'. There are private means of communication on the internet, and could be protected.

 

The town square and the newspaper were never anonymous. And the phone book wasn't, either. There was never a secret about who you were, where you lived, what your occupation was, etc. I put my name in the phone book, like my forebears did. It's still there,(if there is a phone book).

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.