Guest Post by Kurt Nimmo
Robert Bowers, the suspected shooter at a synagogue in Pittsburgh, is being used to denounce social media not on the corporate reservation.
Bowers had an account on Gab, the free speech social media alternative to Twitter and Facebook, where he posted antisemitic content, and this is now being used to portray the site as a haven for antisemites.
Gab posted the following on Twitter:
I don’t believe this will work. Gab, often described as a refuge for alt-righters bounced from corporate-government social media, is targeted for destruction.
Soon after Gab launched in 2016, the corporate media piled on, describing the site as an echo chamber for alt-righters who are, according to the propaganda media, white supremacists and Nazis down to the man and woman.
“Gab’s appeal for that crowd is obvious,” writes Wired, a Condé Nast publication. “The only posting guidelines are no illegal porn, no threats of violence, no terrorism, and no doxing. Oh, and a fifth commandment that literally says ‘try to be nice.’ Everything else is fair game. Notably absent? Any explicit stipulations against hate speech.”
The “hate speech” pejorative is being used to tag anybody to the right of Hillary Clinton as extremist, the sort of people who stroll into synagogues and commit mass murder. The corporate media has done an exemplary job of demonizing the alt-right as nothing more than a fringe gaggle of racists and misogynists, which is of course absurd on its face.
Worth going back to 2016 piece by @amandahess on Gab, “a digital safe space for the far right, where white nationalists, conspiracy-theorist YouTubers, and minivan majority moms can gather without liberal interference” https://t.co/5XKr7EAgpb
— Connor Ennis (@EnnisNYT) October 27, 2018
The effort to shut down Gab depends on the Nazi stereotype. If you’re on Gab, as I am, it’s assumed you’re a fascist, a white supremacist, an angry white male acting violently to preserve his privilege.
Three months ago we spoke out about the Nazi-loving social media platform @getongab after Nazi's threatened @EdKrassen and me.
Today it turns out that the Pittsburgh shooter, Robert Bowers was a prominent member on Gab.
SHUT DOWN GAB!
RETWEET!https://t.co/rTHlW1uAml
— Brian Krassenstein (@krassenstein) October 27, 2018
Responsibility for all of this supposed hatred—arguing with a progressive is now considered aggressive and hateful—falls on Trump.
The Pittsburgh shooter, Rob Bowers, was a verified blue check poster on the white supremacist social media site Gab. He specifically cited the migrant caravan as his motive.
Here's Trump's campaign manager giving Gab a shoutout and signal boost in July. pic.twitter.com/VRwWdOJYWT
— Zeddy (@Zeddary) October 27, 2018
For the Left, violence is acceptable—if it is aimed at alt-righters and others not part of the Resistance™. Hatred is all good if it’s directed at people who are 1) white, 2) male, 3) think Identity politics is pure insanity, and 4) are not Democrats or progressives, therefore Nazis.
Are you horrified by the mass murder of congregants at the Tree of Life Synagogue? Wonder where the shooter could have been radicalized & encouraged to "kill jews"? It's called Gab, the social network for Nazis and bigots. Powered by @stripe.
— New York City Antifa (@NYCAntifa) October 27, 2018
If you believe I’m exaggerating about the effort to shut down Gab and any other social media platform not under the control of the state and its corporate partners, check out this post from Gab:
I believe some day in the not too distant future you will not be allowed an internet presence if your political views don’t align with the state and its corporate propaganda media.
Of course, the state isn’t “progressive,” as many alt-righters tend to think. It is fascist—a melding of state and corporate power.
The elite are exploiting a gullible Left to advance their long-term agenda: a one world government and an all encompassing surveillance state that will make real resistance—not the kind imagined by Hillary Clinton and Debbie Wasserman Schultz—all but impossible.
Reprinted with permission from KurtNimmo.blog.
I thought they said he had a beard.
Pretty sure this is an old picture since he has been ventilated by the police and is in the hospital. Why they didn’t just let him bleed out and save us millions I have no idea.
You are Jewish, aren’t you, son?
Let me explain it to you: because this country is neither Israel, nor the Bolshevik Soviet Union. This is The United States of America and the neo-Bolsheviks didn’t took over America yet.
I am not Jewish but I am quite certain you are one of the drooling assholes fantasizing and whacking your willy while dreaming of shiny knee high boots and jodhpurs and shiny Sam Brown belts clicking your heels and dealing out “justice” to all those who have failed to recognize your brilliance. Your moronic attempts to connect every Jew to Soviet Bolsheviks is so stupid I am surprised your miniscule brain can relay the instructions that keep you breathing.
I do know a lot of Jews and not one of them is an industrialist or international banker or in control of anything beyond their own household and family. Perhaps more Jews are in the 1% but most Jews here and everywhere else are just trying to get by like the rest of us. Vulgarian shitheads like you undoubtedly keep them scared or wary of leaving liberal enclaves and movements because of other loons like you spreading hatred and lies.
Why don’t you and your phony made today ID (gutless fuque) go pollute the Daily Stormer or whatever the hell it is called or wherever you roaches go.
Matt Bracken, who many here know, wrote last week about the work he has been involved with to get GAB off the ground and to keep the drooling Hitler lovers off of it. He said their biggest problem is the way the neo jodhpur wearing loons immediately infest any site which attempts to just “let it fly” like TBP tries to do. It usually doesn’t work and apparently they were just not quick enough in their attempts.
It is up to responsible people to call out the shitheads when they pop up as they do all the time.
i pretty much agree,but where does one draw the line?
jimbo was(is ?)seriously into holocaust denial,but i do not ever recall him advocating violence against jews just because they are jews–
other guys here have basically said to throw them in the ovens–
do we ban the jimbos because of the other guys?
We absolutely should humiliate the people calling for attacks or ovens. You can say you don’t believe the sun rises in the east and people might make fun of you but the statement and arguments over it hurt no one. I think we can tell the difference between somebody saying, “I don’t like those assholes” or “I don’t believe anything about X,Y or Z” and saying someone or “we” should commit murder or violence or damage property. There aren’t many dummies here and we know what is right and wrong.
We often speculate here what certain actions or policies might result in, and how we or society might react to such things, but we keep in the bounds and don’t call for mobs to march somewhere and kill people. Just my opinion.
“We absolutely should humiliate the people calling for attacks or ovens. “
Speak for yourself!
Protecting Hatred Preserves Freedom: Why Offensive Expressions Command Constitutional Protection
by Andrew P. Napolitano
https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1520&context=jlp
Fuck you “Ed.” How does this work for you “Eddy?” “We should all hunt down and kill “Ed” and his family because we don’t like his ancestors.”
Maybe your stupid ass can explain how saying something like that preserves YOUR freedom. Shithead.
YoBo has absolutely advocated, if not tacitly endorsed violence.
He is very careful and very clever, but he has slipped up from time to time.
Horrified by the massacre? Yes. More horrified at the massacre of free speech.
Free speech is free speech. Gab is the only one that holds to that. There is no such thing as hate speech.
I’m sure Twitter had it’s hand in this. The leftists are all piling on together to take out alternatives and threats to themselves.
There is certainly such a thing as hateful speech.
So
It may sound hateful but it’s free speech and shouldn’t be banned. What happened to that old says, “Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me?” It’s up to people to use their judgment to figure out what they’ll listen to or read, not gatekeepers.
In reality, yelling “fire” in a movie theater isn’t a crime. That, too, is free speech. However, the civil penalties would be plenty if someone is injured or killed. Private litigation is where that should be handled, not in criminal court. Libel and slander are the only real offenses against free speech and they are handled in private litigation.
SCOTUS ruled in the case ‘Matal vs Tam’ that so-called “hate speech” is free speech, and is thus protected by the First Amendment. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the unanimous decision.
SCOTUS has also ruled re private property, and ruled in favor of persons having the right to reject work if it violates their beliefs (ie. Christian baker baking a special wedding cake for a gay wedding when his beliefs are that it is a sin).
You can say whatever you want – just not on my property.
I’m no lawyer, but didn’t SCOTUS in Marsh v Alabama rule that First Amendment rights extend even to private property if that property has effectively become a “public square”? We had a similar case where some people were protesting on Mall of America grounds and MN Supreme Court upheld their right to do so.
They also said Trump can’t block people because his Twitter account is now the “public square.”
Remember, the tech companies have a special privilege to allow posts that regular media doesn’t have, meaning social media companies are not considered publishers, hence no reason to censor. If censorship is being done, they can be regulated like the regular media.
Social media is exempt from Section 230 of the Decency Act for which other media are liable.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Communications-Decency-Act
One House representative has threatened to take away their exemption within the Decency Act if they decide to censor content. That will cause a nightmare for them, especially with people advocating political candidates or legislation, which has to follow campaign and lobbying rules.
Yes, they ruled something to that effect. Also seems many think that the current mob would reverse that as many claim that it infringes on property rights. The issue of what is a public square comes into play as well. Is it a physical place? Is it an actual place of business as opposed to say a mall? I do not think you can come into an actual place of business.
Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which it ruled that a state trespassing statute could not be used to prevent the distribution of religious materials on a town’s sidewalk, even though the sidewalk was part of a privately owned company town. The Court based its ruling on the provisions of the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment.
However, in SCOTUS Lloyd v Tanner, the mall won the right to block. AOL also won a case saying it had private property rights.
So, who knows. Recent cases sem to be favoring private property, as it should in my opinion.
There are different decisions being handed down. However, if Congress makes law that social media is no longer exempt from Section 230 of the Decency Act, social media will be liable for their content, again, a major headache, though I’m sure there will be lawsuits to follow until it hits the Supreme Court again.
That’s very true and it was the right verdict, Llpoh, because it is a completely private business with no government ties (except having to pay taxes.)
By the way I said “hate speech” not “hateful speech.” There is a difference. I can say anything I want to you that’s hateful. It’s called free speech.
Edit: “Hate speech” is a political term used by the censors and those trying to shut people up. “Hateful speech” is the true term and it’s allowed under free speech.
Vic, I’ve never been on Gab, don’t know anything about it. Read this. If it’s accurate, Microsoft has a point. https://hillreporter.com/despite-warning-from-microsoft-gab-continues-allowing-hateful-anti-semitic-racist-posts-5661
Star – an eye opening article. Some sick shit is being posted on Gab, and that is for certain.
Anti-Semitic speech is free speech. You can say whatever you want but can’t act on it. Microsoft is covered under the Section 230 exemption explained below.
All of my past comments cover this. Section 230 of the Decency Act allows content on social media sites regardless of what is said or portrayed, and the website is not responsible for what the content is, therefore, they can’t be held accountable. That’s the whole point. That’s also what made social media attractive, the free speech aspect. However, if that 230 exemption is withdrawn, the websites will be responsible for content and can be sued, just like regular media. At this point, they have no incentive to censor. (But it seems political reasons are behind the current censorship. And lawmakers are now talking about removing that 230 exemption because they are censoring.)
By the way, Microsoft is one of the leftist-leaning sites there is. Microsoft itself has a monopoly with their software being used in each computer sold in the U.S. (except Mac computers.) There is no competition there. And they, too, are under the Section 230 exemption. Before long, we’re going to have Congress of the courts directing what can be said on the Internet, which is not what we want.
Edit: I’m talking about they can upload content that is legal within free speech laws. I’m not talking about terrorism, murder, child abuse or other actual crimes that are statutes on the books.
My hope is that instead of the platform filtering out the nitwits the community will. Get too many down votes and you’re outta there. Make it bot-proof and it might work. Censorship is dangerous to Democracy’s health.
That’s exactly what the leftists are doing on YouTube and Twitter, using their community to complain and get the subject banned. Take the gatekeepers down and let people make their own choice on what they listen to, watch or read.
When the board nazis down vote you for saying they shouldn’t advocate killing Jews you have to see that won’t work. The roaches infest any place they think they get a shot at spreading their filth.
First Gab, then the Alt-right, then guns. In that order. Trump is caught in an optical trap.
One thing is for certain, though. The ones who are politicizing this event care absolutely nothing for the Jews.
A leftist psycho is now being used as the reason to attack Trump and his Alt-right supporters. Just another mind-fuck playing out between commercial breaks.
Wait, isn’t the Left judging people collectively here? Don’t they claim to oppose that?
Also, I don’t remember them demanding to have Twitter and Facebook shut down after one of their wind-up loons attempted to assassinate Scalise and his peers.
If it weren’t for double standards . . . .