Jump to content

You are viewing selected threads from MPC's private subforums. To access more, register with MPC for full access. To access less, continue supporting Google, PayPal, and GoDaddy, the official corporate censors of the Internet.

* * * * * 6 votes

Free Speech Absolutism
like 100% Irrationally so

Berkeley Alt- Right Antifa First Amendment Free Speech Pro-Trump

  • Please log in to reply
201 replies to this topic

#21 KingGoy: Gamergate Ethicist

KingGoy: Gamergate Ethicist

    Forums Account Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 725 posts
  • LocationPronouns: biceps/triceps/quadriceps
  • How did you find MPC:URL scrawled in blood on the walls of Abu Ghraib
  • Have you experienced sex?:Yes, in anime relationship (2-D)
  • Have you ever not been in a street fight?:I don't understand the question

Posted 20 August 2017 - 11:22 AM

View PostRexLex, on 20 August 2017 - 11:00 AM, said:

View PostCinco Jotas, on 20 August 2017 - 10:51 AM, said:


Trump needs to hold a series of Trump rallies starting right now.  And he needs to talk more about freedom of speech and basic American rights, right now.

Tuesday he lights up AZ.

It's gonna be 105 degrees in Phoenix on Tuesday. The Rally starts at 7PM, so my guess is that it'll have cooled down to the mid 90s by then. If people are out there, they're gonna be angry, agitated, and ready to rumble. Let's see what's gonna happen.

#22 PLEASUREMAN

PLEASUREMAN

    im 45 and <3 booze

  • Administrators
  • 34515 posts
  • How did you find MPC:I created it
  • Have you experienced sex?:Yes
  • Have you ever not been in a street fight?:Unanswered

Posted 20 August 2017 - 12:04 PM

This is a long overdue wake-up call to the right, which has traditionally been concerned with religious expression, the right to bear arms, and the consequences of federalization of government power.  Those are indeed worthy concerns (although one might dispute the right's effectiveness at addressing them), but speech is the right from which all other rights flow.  Without speech we cannot voice grievances, we cannot assemble, we cannot sue for our other rights.  Without speech we cannot lift the veil on propaganda and untruth, we cannot question or examine or even reason.  Attacking the right of speech is not merely an act of silencing but an act of stupefying--to render stupid.

Anglin's forced silencing is shocking, the moreso because it came via corporate power, not government, and therefore showed at once how totally our first amendment rights have been nullified.  In blatant contravention of Marsh v. Alabama, which concerned the right to speech on privately owned sidewalks in a company town, the corporations that control key segments of the Internet--domain registration and hosting--have determined what cannot be said in public.  Google et al own the sidewalks, and have decided this gives them the right to suppress speech at will--which puts them in direct violation of the United States Constitution.

Among other things we can do is to educate the public--our friends, family, community--of the very strong arguments against these anti-speech moves.  Here, for example, is what I posted to Face***k:

Quote

For those concerned by recent attacks on speech, read Marsh v. Alabama, a Supreme Court decision which held that a private organization cannot suppress public speech simply because it owns the public thoroughfares and meeting places in which public speech must take place. So too does this apply to the corporations which own important parts of the Internet's infrastructure. It is not their right to suppress speech, even or especially on their private networks.
https://en.wikipedia...arsh_v._Alabama

The hackneyed phrase in circulation among anti-speech liberals is "freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences", which like most hackneyed phrases is a lie in service to an injustice.  As a matter of fact, freedom of speech means nothing if it does not come with freedom from consequences.  The only acceptable response to argument is counter-argument.  It is never violence, it is never expulsion from society, it is never imprisonment or fines, it is never economic punishment--for if any of these things is allowed, then open debate is infringed.  And if open debate is infringed, then our democracy itself is controlled by those with the power to sanction speech.  Because men benefit from sanctioning criticism of their misdeeds, this inevitably means the ruin of democracy itself.

As a reminder of a point made in a previous discussion, right of speech and assembly are essential to maintaining social equality within a community--without it, concentrated power is free to enslave those beneath it.  In the past, objection to speech (counter-argument or social influence) occurred within a tangible network of balanced and direct social relationships.  Today the difference is that community social life is diluted and community boundaries have dissolved, and as they have dissolved we are brought into larger, more intangible networks where there is frequently no coherence to the connections, and a severe imbalance in power relationships.

For example, someone a thousand miles away, whom you have never met, and to whom you have no meaningful social relationship, can attack you for your speech.  Here I am drawing a distinction between arguing against you, which is permissible, and attacking your speech rights themselves, either by direct or indirect suppression.  In this we have a one-way exercise of power and its only point is to prevent your speech rights from being exercised.  This is as much in violation of the right to free speech as is a government agent fining or jailing you for criticism.

Important in this distinction is the element of balance.  If two people wish to disassociate from each other over a difference of views, that is permissible and natural.  If a group hears the speech of one person and chooses to ignore him, that is permissible and natural.  But when groups of people choose to punish a speaker, or large corporations choose to take away his voice in public venues, then there is an imbalance that is plainly evil.  The right not to hear speech is easily exercised, but it cannot extend to the right to force others not to hear it, or it becomes tyrannical.

Such soft tyranny has grown as public life has shrunk and weakened, in part because this change to public life removes crucial emotional supports and thus generates hostility and insecurity between groups and individuals.  Previously, such insecurity was evident at the height of the Red Scare, and predictably accompanying it were egregious attacks on speech--via McCarthyism, blacklists, investigation of associates, etc.  Ironically, it is those who once preached against the blacklists who are now full-heartedly promoting this new assault on speech, and it is the organizations most indebted to free speech rights--the press--who are encouraging or defending the assault.  Such is the way ideologies have become ugly mutations of themselves in our society.

The final element to note is that this assault on speech is not merely the product of suspicion and corporate power, it is in every respect a moral panic--an intense, irrational fear of some evil which threatens all of society.  This is easy to demonstrate by numbers alone--the numbers of people who purportedly antagonize the mob's moral sensibilities are small, and more significantly they are powerless against the mob, let alone the corporations collectively worth trillions of dollars, or the politicians who control nearly every important office.  Here the imbalance of power reaches ridiculous proportions and gives the lie to the moral panic.

All of which is to say, that when speech is under irrational, overbearing, and evil assault, it must be irrationally and tenaciously defended.  Defend it as though it is your last right to defend.  Speak and assemble--defend your right with your right.

Love of freedom is irresistible.

#23 Dr. Hasslein

Dr. Hasslein

    Forums Expert (less time for golf)

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6757 posts
  • LocationHouston
  • How did you find MPC:Udolpho's Page
  • Have you experienced sex?:Yes
  • Have you ever not been in a street fight?:Unanswered

Posted 20 August 2017 - 12:12 PM

180^180, Pman.

#24 Trevor Goodchild

Trevor Goodchild

    Posting Associate Level II

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 224 posts
  • LocationBreen command node
  • How did you find MPC:The Demiurge Kek opened my eyes
  • Have you experienced sex?:Yes, in anime relationship (2-D)
  • Have you ever not been in a street fight?:Personal fantasy

Posted 20 August 2017 - 12:28 PM

Amazing post, PMAN. Brilliant.

As an aside, I know a lot of people here already have Gab accounts . . . but everyone should set one up. It's literally the last absolutist free speech fortress left.

#25 Gay Syrian Refugee

Gay Syrian Refugee

    Posting Associate Level II

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 265 posts
  • How did you find MPC:Udolpho
  • Have you experienced sex?:Yes
  • Have you ever not been in a street fight?:Unanswered

Posted 20 August 2017 - 12:36 PM

It's very disheartening to see the sheer extent of brainwashing and mindless fanaticism today, especially among youth. I'm lucky enough to live in a remote and relatively socially conservative part of North America, but the poz exists here too and it is getting worse. A civilization which lies to itself constantly and tries to punish others for speaking the truth does not deserve to survive. The only hope I have is that there are vast numbers of people out there who feel the same way as we do but are afraid to speak out: if they are pushed hard enough they will find their voices and the West can be saved. But we are running out of time.

#26 PLEASUREMAN

PLEASUREMAN

    im 45 and <3 booze

  • Administrators
  • 34515 posts
  • How did you find MPC:I created it
  • Have you experienced sex?:Yes
  • Have you ever not been in a street fight?:Unanswered

Posted 20 August 2017 - 12:38 PM

View PostGay Syrian Refugee, on 20 August 2017 - 12:36 PM, said:

It's very disheartening to see the sheer extent of brainwashing and mindless fanaticism today, especially among youth. I'm lucky enough to live in a remote and relatively socially conservative part of North America, but the poz exists here too and it is getting worse. A civilization which lies to itself constantly and tries to punish others for speaking the truth does not deserve to survive. The only hope I have is that there are vast numbers of people out there who feel the same way as we do but are afraid to speak out: if they are pushed hard enough they will find their voices and the West can be saved. But we are running out of time.

Don't let despair control you.  Don't let setbacks defeat you.  Our cause is just and victory is inevitable.  The only thing uncertain is the path to victory.

#27 Sidney Carton

Sidney Carton

    Forums Account Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 990 posts
  • How did you find MPC:Google reverse image search for Anders Breivik
  • Have you experienced sex?:Yes, grabbed pussy
  • Have you ever not been in a street fight?:Unanswered

Posted 20 August 2017 - 12:51 PM

View PostPLEASUREMAN, on 20 August 2017 - 12:38 PM, said:


Don't let despair control you.  Don't let setbacks defeat you.  Our cause is just and victory is inevitable.  The only thing uncertain is the path to victory.

I would bet that path lies through the Supreme Court. I hope Anglin sues the s**t out Google/GoDaddy/CloudFlare. You would think they've considered all the legal ramifications of cutting him off – their legal departments alone have to be behemoths – but we're in a weird period where there's a simultaneous moral panic AND a sense of triumphalism among the tech poz mega-corps, maybe they let their enthusiasm get the better of them.

There has to be some lawyer – imagine how hilarious if it were Dershowitz – who's eager to take this case on. Possible wishful thinking here, but I hope he's considering it.

#28 Dr. Hasslein

Dr. Hasslein

    Forums Expert (less time for golf)

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6757 posts
  • LocationHouston
  • How did you find MPC:Udolpho's Page
  • Have you experienced sex?:Yes
  • Have you ever not been in a street fight?:Unanswered

Posted 20 August 2017 - 12:54 PM

This is a case the Dersch would take.

#29 PLEASUREMAN

PLEASUREMAN

    im 45 and <3 booze

  • Administrators
  • 34515 posts
  • How did you find MPC:I created it
  • Have you experienced sex?:Yes
  • Have you ever not been in a street fight?:Unanswered

Posted 20 August 2017 - 12:56 PM

View PostSidney Carton, on 20 August 2017 - 12:51 PM, said:

View PostPLEASUREMAN, on 20 August 2017 - 12:38 PM, said:


Don't let despair control you.  Don't let setbacks defeat you.  Our cause is just and victory is inevitable.  The only thing uncertain is the path to victory.

I would bet that path lies through the Supreme Court. I hope Anglin sues the s**t out Google/GoDaddy/CloudFlare. You would think they've considered all the legal ramifications of cutting him off – their legal departments alone have to be behemoths – but we're in a weird period where there's a simultaneous moral panic AND a sense of triumphalism among the tech poz mega-corps, maybe they let their enthusiasm get the better of them.

There has to be some lawyer – imagine how hilarious if it were Dershowitz – who's eager to take this case on. Possible wishful thinking here, but I hope he's considering it.

from their point of view it doesn't matter...they won't face serious penalties from this, and the virtue signaling to shitlibs is a goldmine of free marketing...this is as much about securing themselves from future criticism/monopoly action as anything, imo

#30 Sidney Carton

Sidney Carton

    Forums Account Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 990 posts
  • How did you find MPC:Google reverse image search for Anders Breivik
  • Have you experienced sex?:Yes, grabbed pussy
  • Have you ever not been in a street fight?:Unanswered

Posted 20 August 2017 - 01:03 PM

View PostPLEASUREMAN, on 20 August 2017 - 12:56 PM, said:


from their point of view it doesn't matter...they won't face serious penalties from this, and the virtue signaling to shitlibs is a goldmine of free marketing...this is as much about securing themselves from future criticism/monopoly action as anything, imo

Probably. I don't understand how their actions would affect future monopoly action against them, can you expand?

#31 PLEASUREMAN

PLEASUREMAN

    im 45 and <3 booze

  • Administrators
  • 34515 posts
  • How did you find MPC:I created it
  • Have you experienced sex?:Yes
  • Have you ever not been in a street fight?:Unanswered

Posted 20 August 2017 - 01:12 PM

View PostSidney Carton, on 20 August 2017 - 01:03 PM, said:

View PostPLEASUREMAN, on 20 August 2017 - 12:56 PM, said:


from their point of view it doesn't matter...they won't face serious penalties from this, and the virtue signaling to shitlibs is a goldmine of free marketing...this is as much about securing themselves from future criticism/monopoly action as anything, imo

Probably. I don't understand how their actions would affect future monopoly action against them, can you expand?

the idea is that there wouldn't be vocal calls for enforcement, lots of public support can be influential in determining whether politicians push it (so of course can buying politicians, but every little bit helps)

#32 Trevor Goodchild

Trevor Goodchild

    Posting Associate Level II

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 224 posts
  • LocationBreen command node
  • How did you find MPC:The Demiurge Kek opened my eyes
  • Have you experienced sex?:Yes, in anime relationship (2-D)
  • Have you ever not been in a street fight?:Personal fantasy

Posted 20 August 2017 - 01:37 PM

View PostPLEASUREMAN, on 20 August 2017 - 01:12 PM, said:

View PostSidney Carton, on 20 August 2017 - 01:03 PM, said:

View PostPLEASUREMAN, on 20 August 2017 - 12:56 PM, said:


from their point of view it doesn't matter...they won't face serious penalties from this, and the virtue signaling to shitlibs is a goldmine of free marketing...this is as much about securing themselves from future criticism/monopoly action as anything, imo

Probably. I don't understand how their actions would affect future monopoly action against them, can you expand?

the idea is that there wouldn't be vocal calls for enforcement, lots of public support can be influential in determining whether politicians push it (so of course can buying politicians, but every little bit helps)

But what if :trump: decides to make it a priority? He, above all else, understands the power of social media and how critical it was to his narrow victory.

#33 Dr. Hasslein

Dr. Hasslein

    Forums Expert (less time for golf)

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6757 posts
  • LocationHouston
  • How did you find MPC:Udolpho's Page
  • Have you experienced sex?:Yes
  • Have you ever not been in a street fight?:Unanswered

Posted 20 August 2017 - 01:48 PM

Don't hold your breath waiting for Trump to ride to the rescue.  He's burned enough political capital on the likes of Anglin.

#34 Neophyte

Neophyte

    Posting Associate Level II

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 206 posts
  • How did you find MPC:Heartiste
  • Have you experienced sex?:Yes, in anime relationship (2-D)
  • Have you ever not been in a street fight?:Yes

Posted 20 August 2017 - 03:12 PM

View PostPLEASUREMAN, on 20 August 2017 - 12:04 PM, said:

180
:allears:

So you'll accept President Don Jr's Supreme Court nomination right?

#35 PLEASUREMAN

PLEASUREMAN

    im 45 and <3 booze

  • Administrators
  • 34515 posts
  • How did you find MPC:I created it
  • Have you experienced sex?:Yes
  • Have you ever not been in a street fight?:Unanswered

Posted 20 August 2017 - 03:15 PM

I think the best shot is the courts...hopefully someone with money (or who can raise it) is going to step up

by contrast Pax's CUNNING PLAN to raise $25 million to create a shadow Internet/banking system seems like a bit of a long shot

#36 Faggot Culling License

Faggot Culling License

    Forums Account Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 764 posts
  • LocationThe Great Satan
  • How did you find MPC:twitter
  • Have you experienced sex?:No
  • Have you ever not been in a street fight?:Unanswered

Posted 20 August 2017 - 03:19 PM

View PostPLEASUREMAN, on 20 August 2017 - 03:15 PM, said:

I think the best shot is the courts...hopefully someone with money (or who can raise it) is going to step up

by contrast Pax's CUNNING PLAN to raise $25 million to create a shadow Internet/banking system seems like a bit of a long shot
if someone had that kind of money and wanted to do something like that they probably wouldn't give it to Pax but just hire their own people to do it. People who currently have large piles of money don't get there by being easily persuaded to invest in long shots, and 25 million is well past any kind of crowdfunding.

#37 Summer Camp of the Saints

Summer Camp of the Saints

    Serious Internet Businessman

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1109 posts
  • LocationSpaghetti Warehouse
  • How did you find MPC:Appointed to Trump cabinet
  • Have you experienced sex?:Yes, in anime relationship (2-D)
  • Have you ever not been in a street fight?:I don't understand the question

Posted 20 August 2017 - 03:48 PM

Excellent post PMan, especially the Marsh v Alabama precedent.

There's another possible legal tactic Dain mentioned in chat a few days ago that I don't think got much attention.  These internet monopolies, but especially Google, claim to be "safe harbors" under the OCILLA - https://en.wikipedia..._Limitation_Act (part of the DMCA laws).  Essentially online service providers (a very broad category including both ISPs and Google) won't be held responsible for copyright infringement on their services if it isn't their primary purpose (Napster) and as long as the OSP can reasonable claim they can't/don't monitor their content for infringement.

If google automatically lists my website hosting Backdoor Sorority Grandmas 12 but doesn't know it's pirated material, they aren't at fault.

Of course, it is very obvious that Google (and most of the other de-platformers) are aware of what they host / provide access to.  On top of being obnoxiously hypocritical, I think you could make a reasonable case that they would be no longer considered safe harbors.  You just need to find some big nasty rights holder with a creative legal team to see the opportunity.

Edited by Summer Camp of the Saints, 20 August 2017 - 03:56 PM.


#38 Doctor S

Doctor S

    سوف تضرب كيس الصفن مع مطرقة لمدة أربع ساعات

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2169 posts
  • How did you find MPC:Strangled a man while contemplating the Phaistos Disc
  • Have you experienced sex?:Yes, grabbed pussy
  • Have you ever not been in a street fight?:Unanswered

Posted 20 August 2017 - 03:54 PM

wtf I love copyright trolls now

#39 dain

dain

    Serious Internet Businessman

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1667 posts
  • How did you find MPC:some maladjusted tranny linked me here
  • Have you experienced sex?:Yes, gay sex
  • Have you ever not been in a street fight?:Unanswered

Posted 20 August 2017 - 03:56 PM

I also heard of the following on Twitter:

Shelley v Kraemer (the one that ended racial housing covenants) was justified by saying that since restrictive covenants (contracts) are enforced by the state, it falls under "state action" and therefore Constitutional protections apply (in that case, the Equal Protection clause). But this should apply to 1A as well, and the contract is the TOS. This would put Google et al in an unwinnable position: if the TOS is a legally enforceable contract, they have to respect speech rights. Otherwise, the TOS isn't a proper contract, and they lose that way.

But I'm not a lawyer, so this might be completely fanciful.

Edited by dain, 20 August 2017 - 03:56 PM.


#40 dain

dain

    Serious Internet Businessman

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1667 posts
  • How did you find MPC:some maladjusted tranny linked me here
  • Have you experienced sex?:Yes, gay sex
  • Have you ever not been in a street fight?:Unanswered

Posted 20 August 2017 - 04:20 PM

"Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences" is about power worship. The tone suggests that the "consequences" just happen, like the weather, but this couldn't be further from the truth. The speaker is the one who brings about those consequences, and the only limit on the magnitude of those consequences is how much power he can wield against you and get away with.

In other words, "might makes right".

Coupled with the moral attenuation and disinhibition brought about by the internet that leads to online shame mobs, and the massive incestuous network of corporate power in Silicon Valley, this leads to a level of privatized, decentralized censorship and tyranny that medieval Inquisitors could only salivate at. The victim has no recourse to the law, no recognized advocate, no chance for people to hear his side of the story, no way to appeal his sentence. One wrong move, and he loses his job, people spit on him (or stab him) in the streets, nobody wants to do business with him. If you can pressure internet companies into no-platforming someone, you can pressure supermarkets into not selling him food and utility companies into cutting off the electricity and water. They're private actors, bigot!

On the other hand, the consequence-bringers face no guaranteed punishment if they overstep or get the wrong person. No skin in the game. The only way they face any pushback is if they pick on someone who can fight back with equal force. Free speech becomes a luxury of the wealthy, and those with nothing to lose.

Edited by dain, 20 August 2017 - 04:25 PM.




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Berkeley, Alt- Right, Antifa, First Amendment, Free Speech, Pro-Trump

MPC is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com.