news Free Speech

[Bernard Wright]

Many seem to think freedom of speech should be a protection offered only to those with popularly-held beliefs, which I find ironic. Here is my logic. Perhaps you can tell me where it is flawed.

There is evil in the world. Most of us would rather there not be. I think that's a fair premise.

However, evil, on its face, is not objective, and what falls under "evil" cannot be relegated to any governing body, even if that body were democratically elected. Moreover, ostracizing "evil" from polite society will create resentment and an underground network where it is out of sight and out of mind, until it rears a very large head.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say banning certain modes of thought and communication from the internet is effective. I think there have been examples of popular figures whose prominence has waned after being deplatformed by Twitter, so maybe the method does work. Is this not a precedent that could (and in time, likely would) lead to unforeseen consequences that hit closer to home as cultural pendulums swing?

So, 10/10 on the bad scale gets banned today. Maybe next month we work our way down to 8/10 on the bad scale. So, in a few months, we're all content with everything on the internet being a 1 to 7. Feels good to be a 1! The powers that be really like you 1s. ...Look out 6s.

But some people reeeealy want those 7s gone, and they lobby. So the governing body that draws the line declares all 7s gone. No internet presence for you. But now concern arises among even those who are proponents of the system. It's becoming scary to see how quickly a 7 can lose their voice and be banned from the marketplace of ideas, just for going against popular opinion. But this is only a minority of people who hold this concern. Most people are fine with it. In turn, that minority gets put under the microscope, and who would have thought? They're SEVENS. Boot 'em.

In my hypothetical world, consensus is somehow reached that 7 shall remain the line. However, what is defined as a 6 or a 7 can change over time, and once someone is deemed a 7, there is no turning back because they have been ostracized. You can't come back in 7s! And the 8s, 9s, and 10s are out of sight, out of mind.

Are the 7s, 8s, 9s, and 10s, still alive? You bet they are. And that's a lot of people, and some of them are not only evil, they are intelligent and capable.

This is an oversimplification. There is much nuance and complexity in the real world, and that is the point. We cannot draw straight lines between good and evil, and who we should let participate in society. I see the only solution to keeping things from unraveling into utter chaos to be allowing some chaos and dissent to remain the in the system. Allowing any group of people, or any political faction to dominate, might actually result in short-term benefits. I'm not saying it won't work in the short term. My point is, who draws the line, and who decides what falls on either side of the line, is not something I am comfortable placing in the hands of others, even if they are elected officials. Don't be so naive as to think that the politicians are going to get it right and create utopia. And don't think you will either. The world is complex.

Road to Hell. Good intentions.

 

[frank-germany]

I wonder whether a court might eventually weigh-in regarding whether it is indeed support of a crime. It is documenting a crime, surely. The extent to which it is supporting the crime is rather a case-by-case situation, dependent upon the reason for which the video was broadcast.

There have been videos of tragic crimes by which deep analysis has been conducted to expose perpetrators who otherwise would not have been exposed. Some cases have involved police offer shootings of civilians. Thanks to these videos, the truth can be exposed.

we are not talking about a TV crew accidentally filming the massacre
but about a video shot by the criminal itself to promote his crime

thats a completely different story

 

[Dandelion]

I don't know where to begin, so let just read on and follow

 

[biggie]

If the laws had been set in the 1950s that LGBT would never have a voice, then we today would have no LGBT voice in society.

here's an "If" for you

if God created Adam and Steve, instead of Adam and Eve, would we have a society now?
wonder if that's the base for fear of the future and the hate existing now?

in Chicago, we got two African American women as finalists, out of 14 candidates running for mayor
one of them will be the 1st black female to be elected mayor

but one, Lori Lightfoot is openly gay
so, there have been flyers posted, saying that she would give all the jobs and city contracts to gay people
.
apparently this was done in an effort to stymie votes from her to the other candidate Toni Preckwinkle, who is currently the president of cook county board.

are those flyers, whether true or not, protected by free speech?

during the st patricks day parade last week, white supremist posters were put on light poles along the parade route
are those posters protected by free speech?

in both instances, the flyers and posters were removed, but... what about the hate?

are those publications considered free speech, freedom of expression?
and whether you're taking them down or putting them up...who is within their rights, to do so?

imo...

 

[offthehandle]

Explain this. A Criminal being documented with his face covered.
Confessing his crime.

Human trafficking is all over the news- here is one short documentary
about rapists-killers. Again, Free speech. However disgusting and horrible.

 

[offthehandle]

Parkland shooting, need to log in. Posted by Guardian.

 

[Bernard Wright]

we are not talking about a TV crew accidentally filming the massacre but about a video shot by the criminal itself to promote his crime

thats a completely different story

The truth of the matter is, evil, arbitrary a term as it may be, will never cease to exist in this world. And you have yourself stated that what defines evil is indeed arbitrary; it can be interpreted differently by each individual.

Referring back to my original post, you are intently focused on what most would surely deem a "10" on the evil scale. I have clearly articulated my reasons for allowing even 10's to remain in the public square. We as individuals have our own agency to act accordingly, making wise choices, and valuing our freedom to make those choices. I hope to continue to have such freedom of choice, and I will continue to strive to make good choices. I will encourage others to do the same. But I will not force my opinions or choices upon anyone. I will honor their right to act with their own agency and I will act with my own.

 

[Bernard Wright]

are those posters protected by free speech?

in both instances, the flyers and posters were removed, but... what about the hate?

are those publications considered free speech, freedom of expression?
and whether you're taking them down or putting them up...who is within their rights, to do so?

imo...

The US Supreme Court has ruled that there is no hate speech exception to the first amendment.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/

 

[Bernard Wright]

I should clarify that I might be misusing the word "agency". I mean to say that I have the unfettered right to act for myself in society. I am the agent of my own will.

 

[carob]

Registrars are private companies and can eject whomever they please, as long as they can cite something in their policy. No registrar is required to uphold freedom of speech.

Yet if all registrars act in this way, then freedom of speech online becomes practically impossible.

I'm not so sure it becomes impossible - you can just change domain or use an ip address. Wikileaks lost their domain and survived. This domain/content/hosting relationship was touched on in the original Gab thread, worth hunting up if one has the time.

Free as in speech or free as in beer? Free speech in the sense of speaking to people face to face or speaking to people through some medium such as television, radio, internet? Because those media are always controlled by someone and have a cost, even if it is not the users paying it. Namepros, or their advertisers, are paying the bandwidth cost of us discussing freedom of speech here.

But when you say "There is a strong argument to make for registrars acting as a neutral utility." I agree because we need to separate content, hosting, and domain. And CMS. Otherwise next we'll be telling people they can't use Wordpress or PHP or Apache... you laugh, but what if all Microsoft products had in the ToS that you may not defend privacy using that product?

 

[Slanted]

As I've stated elsewhere, I think that publishing a video of the NZ massacre – and especially casting doubt on the video as a hoax – is a terrible mistake ... factually wrong and (above all) insensitive to the victims and muslim community. In Rob's case, since he is a CEO, it was also a PR blunder of the worst kind.

it has nothing to do with "free speech" to post a link to video or upload a video from a 3rd party

Of course, posting a link or uploading a file is a form of speech. That's generally recognized, since communication depends on sharing information in that way.

Yes, this unwholesome video has a lot to do with free speech. Some people believe it should be banned; others believe it should be disseminated; and still others believe neither – that it should simply be allowed. In other words, people are arguing whether such speech should be free or restricted. Defining the limit of free speech IS about free speech.

There were 2 components:

(1) Video footage of a massacre
(2) A claim that the video was a hoax

Either could exist without the other. Reputable news sources could, hypothetically, show clips of such a video without claiming it as a hoax. And conspiracy theorists, I expect, will write that the video is a hoax even without publishing it.

Which of these should be banned? That's not a rhetorical question. There are 4 possible answers: Both, neither, just #1, just #2. The very idea of watching the video repulses me. And I object strongly to anyone who claims it's a hoax. But I myself am not sure that either component of speech should be banned everywhere. Facebook and Twitter may do as they like, of course.

to upload a video from somebody else
that has committed a mass murder
has nothing to with free speech

What makes this particularly unsavory is that the video was (so I understand) filmed by the murderer's helmet cam. To some, that makes the video seem sanctioned by the murderer; and it makes those who publish the video appear to be endorsing the murderer. But logically that doesn't follow. Some of the people who have re-published the video are, no doubt, anti-muslim bigots who cheer the murder. Others might simply object to censorship and – seeing major platforms ban the footage – publish the video for the sake of that abstract principle. And others might be conspiracy theorists who believe (incorrectly) that they are doing a public good by exposing a hoax.

If the video were filmed by a security camera or an innocent bystander or a crew of TV journalists, then I imagine people would judge it differently. Endlessly replaying footage of the 9/11 attack, of the towers' collapse, of victims jumping to their deaths from the windows – that happens on the anniversary of 9/11 every year on U.S. television. Time has passed, but it is still traumatic for some of the families and survivors. Yet few people have asked that footage to be banned.

Moreover, the web is full of conspiracy theorists showing this footage and claiming it's a hoax. That is not censored either. And the same applies to the Sandy Hook school shooting, the JFK assassination, various police shootings of unarmed black teens, etc. The videos are replayed online, and some people claim they are hoaxes

Should a different standard be applied to the video footage that came from this murderer's helmet cam? Maybe. But we can't simply say that "uploading a video ... of mass murder has nothing to do with free speech". As a society, we have to debate which cases of speech should be banned and which should be permitted.

that is illegal support of a crime
- I guess thats illegal in every country -

No, that's not true. People who share a video of a crime don't necessarily support the crime. That distinction should be obvious to anyone. Such actions might be illegal in some places, but it seems very unlikely that they are illegal everywhere. As far as I know, that action isn't illegal in the USA.

 

[frank-germany]

No, that's not true. People who share a video of a crime don't necessarily support the crime. That distinction should be obvious to anyone. Such actions might be illegal in some places, but it seems very unlikely that they are illegal everywhere. As far as I know, that action isn't illegal in the USA.

I am done with you

you use by far too many words

to justify an unjustifiable behavior

nice try
but I get bored

 

[Bernard Wright]

Frank, I value your engagement in this thread. I hope anyone reading this thread does not interpret any content as an endorsement or downplaying of any tragedy that has occurred at any time in human history.

All emotions aside, I posed a logical thought experiment in my first post, and I elaborated on that same topic in my third post. They are lengthy posts but they are the topics I am most concerned with in this thread. I would like the logic to be followed, and any member may refute this scenario. In fact, I hope you will. I hope to learn from this as an exercise in logic. If my logic is flawed or the conclusion is false, I hope someone will bring it to my attention. This thread was never intended to be a place for members to express their sentiments about particular events. It was, and remains, an attempt to address the overarching principles on which the landscapes of our physical and online realities have been built. It is an attempt to discern the possible outcomes that would result if these overarching principles were not defended, by both individuals and entities who participate in these realities.

I will refrain from any further posts in hopes someone will acknowledge this intent and engage accordingly. I hope someone will.

 

[frank-germany]

If my logic is flawed or the conclusion is false, I hope someone will bring it to my attention.

where you are wrong in my opinion is:
-------------------------------------------------

you want to avoid a potential future thread

and in order to avoid that
you help actually existing murderers to be nourished in executing their plans


that is putting the potential cause of a potential future danger ( the government )
at the same level as the real existing danger
of actual murderers


you help these criminals to effectively promote their ideas

if they would not be able to do so
there would be no reason to continue with these crimes


this is what you sacrify
based on the idea
that a ( potential ) evil government
will do harm in the future


I would suggest instead
to fight the real existing murderers first

and then fight the government in your pessimistic future outcome
when it will have happened

-maybe there will be no problem that you want to fight now-
who knows

but the actual crime is real now

 

[Rob Monster]

I am joining a bit late to this thread.

First of all, I want to thank @Bernard Wright for starting this thread. The topic of free speech is important. It certainly deserves its own thread as many in the domain industry have important roles to play in this area.

Second, I want to acknowledge Bernard for using his real name rather than an alias. I realize that there are many Bernard Wright's in the world. I take it on faith that he is one of them! I hope others will do the same.

As I reflected on the past week, I realize my actions last weekend offended some. My intent was never to offend. To those who were offended by my actions, I apologize to you.

The context of the personal Tweet was one of being personally attacked on my personal Twitter by two people from the embattled SPLC that has lost its second top executive this month due to internal scandal.

In retrospect, I should never have taken the Twitter bait. A lesson was certainly earned there. For this reason, I am taking a break from Twitter both personally and generally.

As for my role at Epik, I plan to continue as CEO as we work to grow Epik.com, Anonymize.com, and BitMitigate.com. We will equally serve any lawfully-engaged content producer, without bias or preference.

 

[bmugford]

As I reflected on the past week, I realize my actions last weekend offended some. My intent was never to offend. To those who were offended by my actions, I apologize to you.

I am not going to say the your apology in insincere, but there is a big difference between directly apologizing for your actions and just apologizing if someone was offended. It was perfectly reasonable for someone to be offended.

On a side note, I am not sure posting as "Epik" on Gab is real great for your brand.
Let's look at some comments in response to your post - https://gab.com/epik/posts/aVh4U1lTR1dueWJoT2dBN3l2RnU2dz09

They need to silence us.

This false flag attack was designed to push disarming the population and silence Gab/Dissenter and 4 & 8 Chan. The fact that they targeted 8chan is to make Q and Q research inaccessible.

DemoKKKrats are Nazis

Better a Nazi than a cuck. Fuck those dumbasses. Go stay on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook. Gab ain’t a safe space for the beta Liberals.

 

[Rob Monster]

On a side note, I am not sure posting as "Epik" on Gab is real great for your brand.
Let's look at some comments in response to your post - https://gab.com/epik/posts/aVh4U1lTR1dueWJoT2dBN3l2RnU2dz09

Gab is an Epik client and arguably an oppressed one at that. If you look at my opening post there, my condition for allowing them to continue to be an Epik client is that they clean up their act.

Anyone who compares the Gab of today versus the Gab of October 2018 can see a notable difference. The booting of Chris Cantwell by Gab last week was overdue in my view but it was not decision.

For some the mere existence of Gab, Dissenter, BitChute, Infowars, etc. are objectionable. However, their content is lawful and they do have terms of service and are governing themselves accordingly.

 

[bmugford]

Gab is an Epik client and arguably an oppressed one at that. If you look at my opening post there, my condition for allowing them to continue to be an Epik client is that they clean up their act.

Anyone who compares the Gab of today versus the Gab of October 2018 can see a notable difference. The booting of Chris Cantwell by Gab last week was overdue in my view but it was not decision.

For some the mere existence of Gab, Dissenter, BitChute, Infowars, etc. are objectionable. However, their content is lawful and they do have terms of service and are governing themselves accordingly.

Fair enough.

If you think posting as "Epik" on there is the best business move go for it.

Though it does seems contrary to what Joseph Peterson was trying to spin that Rob Monster and Epik are different entities. That just reinforces Rob Monster is Epik, and Epik is Rob Monster.

Brad

 

[Corey]

@Rob Monster thank you for your apology, I appreciate it.

Cheers
Corey

 

[offthehandle]

Rob, can you start a new thread or a blog regarding your new product summary and what philosophy is behind them and they are going to do to for the internet? I am very much pro free speech and interested as well as probably many of those who are silent about seeing where this anti censorship thing is heading. I am anti big tech monopoly as it stands now, so new small nimble companies are needed to make change.

 

[Rob Monster]

Fair enough.

If you think posting as "Epik" on there is the best business move go for it.

Though it does seems contrary to what Joseph Peterson was trying to spin that Rob Monster and Epik are different entities. That just reinforces Rob Monster is Epik, and Epik is Rob Monster.

Brad

Well, I am known at Gab as @EPIK there. I use my personal photo there. My activity on Gab is out in the open. I promote tolerance and free speech. If folks want to monitor my posts there, by all means that is fine. There is no duplicity and I am leading by example. I think it will be apparent, I am promoting non-violent, responsible, and lawful free speech and take issue with those who wish to take that right away.

Although I am less active there these days at Gab, I did make it a point to establish credibility not just specifically for Gab but among all who stand for free speech and privacy. The result has been to gain the trust and confidence among several groups where I am aware of the leadership. As such, I believe I can appeal to them when I need to do so though I do respect the sovereignty of any client.

Incidentally, I tried very hard to do the same exercise of trust-building with ANTIFA and SPLC among other groups. In retrospect, my leaps of faith or blind trust, were met with opportunistic exploitation. There is no question in my mind that those who advocate for hate or violence are fighting the wrong battle. Just FYI, this includes NamePros members who message me privately about their views.