Parler's Fantastic Free Speech Thread

[Samson]

He told his supporters to peacefully protest the EC certification and cheer members of Congress challenging it. Incitement would be like shouting burn it down or kill the cops at riots where arsonists are playing with matches and rioters are hurling rocks and bricks at cops.

From his own words:

So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, and we’re going to the Capitol and we’re going to try and give … The Democrats are hopeless. They’re never voting for anything, not even one vote. But we’re going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don’t need any of our help, we’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.

That reads pretty ominous to me.

 

[Gorbles]

I watched them do it... They used Russiagate to demand social platforms censor people in the name of combating disinformation.

Right. That's not coercing anybody into censoring anyone. The social media platforms you're talking about already have moderation, and rules limiting speech.

I posted a joke logo and you put me in your freeze peach demographic of people who had no issue with deplatforming Kaepernick. Now you're denying it.

Please read it more closely. I said "often selectively so". I did not say "you are like this". I was explaining the demographic in general to Manfred.

 

[cardgame]

If conservatives are being censored, why won't they ever shut the hell up?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

He told his supporters to peacefully protest the EC certification and cheer members of Congress challenging it.

No he di'n't

Added to that the lies he is intentionally selling simpletons about a stolen election. Words of the President matter.

I watched them do it... They used Russiagate to demand social platforms censor people in the name of combating disinformation.

https://www.acslaw.org/projects/the...resources/key-findings-of-the-mueller-report/

 

[caketastydelish]

He does not have a First Amendment case; the 1st doesn't apply here (even tho' free speech is being violated) But he probably does for the Sherman Antitrust Act. I don't know if it's a strong case or not.

how is his free speech being violated?

 

[Samson]

Amazon have had their say:

Amazon Web Services filed its response to Parler's lawsuit on Tuesday, blaming the social media platform favored by the far-right for filing a "meritless claim" against the cloud computing giant and citing a liability shield often maligned by President Donald Trump: Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934.
AWS's legal brief argues that it is Parler, not Amazon (AMZN), that breached the terms of its contract and that Parler's removal from AWS's hosting platform was a "last resort."
"This case is about Parler's demonstrated unwillingness and inability to remove from the servers of Amazon Web Services ('AWS') content that threatens the public safety," Amazon wrote, "such as by inciting and planning the rape, torture, and assassination of named public officials and private citizens."
The response highlights more than a dozen examples that Amazon said it reported to Parler, including calls for a civil war and the deaths of Democratic lawmakers; tech company CEOs including Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey; members of professional sports leagues; former Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao; and US Capitol Police, among others.
Amazon denied that it interfered in Parler's relationship with its users, and claimed that Parler's antitrust allegations do not meet the basic threshold required for a Sherman Act claim. Parler had alleged Amazon was engaged in a conspiracy to eliminate a competitor from the marketplace; Amazon said Parler's suit fails to define a relevant market or specify how competition was harmed.​

 

[caketastydelish]

I don't see why Amazon needs any reason at all to drop them. As a private business, can't they refuse service to anyone they want?

 

[Samson]

I don't see why Amazon needs any reason at all to drop them. As a private business, can't they refuse service to anyone they want?

Presumably they have a contractual relationship with Parlor. Amazon hold the Parlor broke it by hosting content it considered 'excessively violent' and 'harassing'.

 

[IglooDame]

Amazon have had their say:

<<Parler had alleged Amazon was engaged in a conspiracy to eliminate a competitor from the marketplace;>>​

This is the funny lawyerly part where they are clearly just throwing everything they can into the suit. Certainly Parler could take Facebook to task for that, but Amazon? Amazon hosts lots of social media apps on AWS, if anything they want more competition there (and thus more business), not less.

 

[El_Machinae]

From his own words:

That reads pretty ominous to me.

I think a strong case could be made that the speech itself was not incitement. At least, not in the criminal sense.

Impeachment is a different process. As an employee of the United States citizen, Trump had one job this month, and that was to assist in the peaceful transition of power to a new government.

" misdemeanors " is not well defined. But bilking the voter base for donations, in lieu of actually building confidence in the process, could easily qualify. That is, if the Senate decides to say that it is. People complaining about impeachment should remember that he should have been removed for emoluments right away. His supporters were frogs in the pot

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

When you have guys leading Trump in with "Let’s have trial by combat", “Today is the day American patriots start taking down names and kicking ass, are you willing to sacrifice your blood or lives as your ancestors had done" , “We’re coming for you [Republican members of Congress]” Trump can be vague. But I do feel trump also bears some responsibility over what his guest speakers are spouting.

But more damning is the motivator for the rioters. They were mislead in thinking their votes were stolen, the election was rigged. That is the source of the anger, and Trump and his cronies have been fueling that for months for this election specifically.

The words of a president matter.

 

[Ferocitus]

When you have guys leading Trump in with "Let’s have trial by combat", “Today is the day American patriots start taking down names and kicking ass, are you willing to sacrifice your blood or lives as your ancestors had done" , “We’re coming for you [Republican members of Congress]” Trump can be vague. But I do feel trump also bears some responsibility over what his guest speakers are spouting.

But more damning is the motivator for the rioters. They were mislead in thinking their votes were stolen, the election was rigged. That is the source of the anger, and Trump and his cronies have been fueling that for months for this election specifically.

The words of a president matter.

You could farm a lot of Bitcoins with a backpedal generator these days.

 

[Lexicus]

From his own words:

That reads pretty ominous to me.

They were playing clips of it on CNN and I was surprised Trump didn't burst into cackling laughter and declare "ONCE MORE THE SITH WILL RULE THE GALAXY"

 

[Berzerker]

From his own words:

That reads pretty ominous to me.

Why? Thx for the link btw. I read a NYT piece with some quotes and if we changed a few names around it could have been given by a Democrat. I've heard worse from them, they spent years stoking anger at 'racist cops' stuck waging their drug war. I wonder how Trump can be impeached and convicted when the SCOTUS would undoubtedly rule that was free speech and not incitement.

Course it goes to the Senate and not the courts, but the chief justice would be presiding over a trial his own court would toss with probably near unanimous consent. There is no doubt in my mind Trump and the Democrats fueled riots with their rhetoric. Trump 1, Democrats 500. This is another case of the Pharisees and the adulteress, the people throwing stones are guilty too, more guilty. They've been throwing stones for 4 years.

Right. That's not coercing anybody into censoring anyone. The social media platforms you're talking about already have moderation, and rules limiting speech.

Then why were Democrats telling them to censor people if their moderation was in place? Do you think the Democrats told these platforms to censor the NY Post article about Hunter's laptop. Yes, when members of Congress tell people they better do something that is coercion. Thats how Congress raises $$$ for re-election. I believe the term is shaking the tree. If Congress wants corporate money they take bribes and do favors, sometimes favors that hurt the competition.

But another way they raise money is to threaten people with regulation. Oh the money pours in when Congress eyes an industry 'in need' of more regulations. Thats the case here with social platforms. If they defy the Democrats desire for censorship they run the risk of Congress screwing them.

Besides, if the Constitution wont allow that infringement on the 1st Amendment Congress cant make an end run around that prohibition by telling corporations they better censor people. Thats what Trump did with the NFL and Kaepernick and it was wrong.

Please read it more closely. I said "often selectively so". I did not say "you are like this". I was explaining the demographic in general to Manfred.

You accused me of being in this freeze peach demographic and then accused that demographic of a double standard over Kaepernick. If you weren't talking about me why am I the only one you mentioned?

If conservatives are being censored, why won't they ever shut the hell up?

Some guy named Ariel Pink is an indie rocker, he attended Trump's speech and went to his hotel afterward to sleep. He was dropped by his label. How did you feel about conservatives deplatforming the Dixie Chicks? I thought it was disgusting.

Course I agreed with the lead singer who trashed Bush, the challenge is being disgusted when I dont like the people being deplatformed. I can meet that challenge because I know where it leads, the end of free speech. The Democrats are the party of censorship.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Hey, zerKKKer, which party has been trying to coopt the 1st amendment with the flag burning amendment? Which KKK-loving US President called it a no brainer? (Hint it wasn't Woody Row Wilson)

 

[Lexicus]

I don't see why Amazon needs any reason at all to drop them. As a private business, can't they refuse service to anyone they want?

I just hate everything right now because I think all these giant tech platforms need to be publicly accountable and do present first amendment issues, but I also don't gaf about right-wingers getting trebucheted off them and/or yotten from orbit.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Freedumb. Can you imagine going into a private company and making death threats and then finding out that they no longer want to do business with you ?
Also of note: Twitter was not de-platformed because it carried out a massive purge, while Parler is refusing to.

Amazon’s Other Reason for Booting Parler: Threats to Staff
Amazon.com Inc. says Parler LLC isn’t only dangerous to law and order in the nation’s capital, but to the tech giant’s own staff.

To justify to a judge why it suspended web-hosting service for the conservative social media site, Amazon executives cited threats by Parler users to delivery drivers and staff at the e-commerce giant -- as well as concern that Parler failed to police violent content both before and after the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol.

two unidentified Amazon executives submitted statements in court filings about Parler users “posting threats of physical violence to Amazon delivery drivers, Amazon facilities, and Amazon executives.” They each wrote: “As a result of these threats and similar threats against employees of other companies that have suspended Parler or others from their services, I am concerned for my safety, as well as the safety of my colleagues.”

The complaint, alleging a concerted refusal to deal, lacks basic facts that must be plead to sustain such claims. The dispute is a commercial one, if anything, yet Parler’s breach of contract claims seem weak too.”

https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/amazon-tells-court-parler-remain-010508988.html

 

[Samson]

I am not the only one that thinks they should have been able to stay up if they tried hard enough:

Pirate Bay co-founder criticises Parler for its lack of resilience
Torrent search engine is still up after years of whack-a-mole with copyright cops

One of the co-creators of notorious BitTorrent search engine The Pirate Bay has criticised free speech social network Parler for the lack of resilience that saw it go dark after Amazon Web Services booted it out of its cloud.
Peter Sunde Kolmisoppi took to Twitter to offer his opinions.

The pirate bay, the most censored website in the world, started by kids, run by people with problems with alcohol, drugs and money, still is up after almost 2 decades. Parlor and gab etc have all the money around but no skills or mindset. Embarrassing.
The most ironic thing is that TPBs enemies include not just the US government but also many European and the Russian one. Compared to gab/parlor which is supported by the current president of the US and probably liked by the Russian one too​

 

[Arwon]

I think a strong case could be made that the speech itself was not incitement. At least, not in the criminal sense.

Impeachment is a different process. As an employee of the United States citizen, Trump had one job this month, and that was to assist in the peaceful transition of power to a new government.

" misdemeanors " is not well defined. But bilking the voter base for donations, in lieu of actually building confidence in the process, could easily qualify. That is, if the Senate decides to say that it is. People complaining about impeachment should remember that he should have been removed for emoluments right away. His supporters were frogs in the pot

Yup, there's no way he would be convicted in a US court of criminal incitement because in America the case law is that it requires, basically, explicit instructions that are immediately carried out by the people being incited. The speech was crafted as an obvious dog whistle full of plausible deniability and multiple meanings that courts would ignore.

But a Senate impeachement trial won't be intending or required to meet the standard of a courtroom criminal conviction, he's essentially gonna be tried for violating the standards of his office, as defined by the politics of the body in question.

 

[IglooDame]

I am not the only one that thinks they should have been able to stay up if they tried hard enough:

Pirate Bay co-founder criticises Parler for its lack of resilience
Torrent search engine is still up after years of whack-a-mole with copyright cops

One of the co-creators of notorious BitTorrent search engine The Pirate Bay has criticised free speech social network Parler for the lack of resilience that saw it go dark after Amazon Web Services booted it out of its cloud.
Peter Sunde Kolmisoppi took to Twitter to offer his opinions.

The pirate bay, the most censored website in the world, started by kids, run by people with problems with alcohol, drugs and money, still is up after almost 2 decades. Parlor and gab etc have all the money around but no skills or mindset. Embarrassing.
The most ironic thing is that TPBs enemies include not just the US government but also many European and the Russian one. Compared to gab/parlor which is supported by the current president of the US and probably liked by the Russian one too​

​

You're not even the only one in CFC that thinks that.