I have a very serious complaint.It seems everytime I turn on my computer I get a picture of Trump somewhere.I keep telling him to f/off but he keeps coming back.It must be the language difficulty.Him speaking American and me speaking English!
It doesn't. They've studied it. I don't really care about murderers getting executed, but it's irreversible and the wrong person can get penalised. Capital punishment simply isn't effective and it's certainly not worth killing innocent people over.
The Derek Bentley case highlights the issue with capital punishment: Christopher Craig was the one who shot and killed a police officer, but as he was underage he couldn't go to the gallows but because Bentley was over 18 he was essentially hanged for using the phrase "Let him have it Chris!" when an officer ordered Craig to hand over the weapon - and when Bentley was given a posthumous pardon in 1998 Lord Bingham ruled the trial to be unfair as the judge had both misdirected the jury and railroaded them towards a conviction
Personally, I think Lord Bingham is the one at fault. I also think that they should have delayed the trial until Craig was 18, then perhaps they could have hung him too. The poor police officer died at the hands of a couple of criminals who chose to carry an illegal weapon. Lucky for criminals that I am not in charge of law making because possession of an illegal firearm would be enough to send someone to the gallows, they wouldn't have to use it.
The level of certainty for a conviction that imposes the death sentence would have to be orders of magnitude above "beyond reasonable doubt" . If you have that, then by all means carry out the punishment.
Surprised nobody else here has answered this. gab.ai is an alternative to Twitter, not developed nor controlled by the Silicon Valley mob (it is committed to free speech etc) . The Pittsburgh nutter posted stuff on it long before and leading up to the act, and gab.ai was taken down. Not because of criminal law, but because infrastructure providers (server hosts, Paypal etc) withdrew resource under alleged "terms of service" violations. As I said, the lines have now been crossed on 'we are a platform and not a publisher' , and "universal service obligation" , when it comes to Internet facilities. Govt regulation is now required to bring the Internet in line with established telecoms. Silicon Valley think they can have their version of freedom of access/ speech etc on their own terms just like they do regarding residency etc when they are committing industrial scale tax avoidance. The past weekend has proved they are unfit to judge anything on this matter.
He's referring to the social media platform set up by somebody who uses the phrase "left-leaning Big Social monopoly" unironically that was perceived as a haven for free speech, but in reality the complete lack of oversight means it's a haven for the far right to spew their bile - which is why the app has never been available on the Apple or Google store for violating their terms on pornography and hate speech respectively - which is mainly used by far right demagogues who have been banned from other social media platforms such as Milos Yiannopoulos, Alex Jones, Jayda Fransen and Richard B Spencer and is a haven for antisemitism and holocaust deniers Having previously been in the headlines back in August when posts by holocaust denier and endorsed Republican candidate for the California Senate election Patrick Little came to light (and there's no ambiguity in either of them), Gab returned to the headlines in the wake of the Tree of Life shooting when it emerged that the shooter Robert Bowers was not only posting antisemitic material to his profile but was actively talking about committing a mass shooting yet Gab did not intervene, leading to numerous transaction processing services such as PayPal and Joyent cutting ties with the platform while platform host Joyent pulled their web-hosting services - which isn't even the first time that has happened in Gab's history, as they were booted from previous host Asia Registry in September 2017 as a result of white supremacist hacker Andrew Auernheimer demanding genocide against Jews and praising Oklahoma bomber Timothy McVeigh In other words, Gab's yet another example of the Breitbart generation's inability to comprehend that having freedom of speech does not exempt you from the consequences of what you say, coupled with the apathetic attitude towards moderation that makes Not606's PL board such a pleasant place to visit...
In other words, the SJW inability to comprehend that Nazi genocide denial or anti-semitic statements that does not call to kill, does not violate the USA 1st amendment. But a direct incitement to kill does.
I repeat In other words, Gab's yet another example of the Breitbart generation's inability to comprehend that having freedom of speech does not exempt you from the consequences of what you say, coupled with the apathetic attitude towards moderation that makes Not606's PL board such a pleasant place to visit...
Gab / Twitter / Facebook / Youtube are examples of the inability of the moron generations' inability to comprehend that freedom of expression/speech has exceptions that are covered by criminal law, and always has been.
Facebook, Twitter and Youtube all have oversight so that when their users are violating criminal law they step in some cases referred those users to the relevant authorities, Gab just sat back and said "Look at us, you SJW losers, we have free speech!" while not doing a damn thing when one of their users was openly planning a mass shooting. To try and draw a comparison between the two is not only disingenuous, but outright laughable. Also, since you brought up the First Amendment, here's what the ruling of Gertz vs Robert Welch (1974) stated But there is no constitutional value in false statements of fact. Neither the intentional lie nor the careless error materially advances society's interest in "uninhibited, robust? and wide-open" debate on public issues. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. at 270. They belong to that category of utterances which "are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality." ( Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942) Although the erroneous statement of fact is not worthy of constitutional protection, it is nevertheless inevitable in free debate. So tell me, RDBD, do you agree with the abundance of evidence that makes it clear that the Holocaust happened, or do you believe that the Holocaust is a hoax perpetrated by the Jewish conspiracy so that George Soros can control the world? I'm asking because the first option clearly states that, as they are making false statements of fact which have no constitutional value, the holocaust deniers of Gab are not protected by the First Amendment and therefore Gab should be held responsible for their apathetic attitude towards moderating their platform until others had to draw attention to the bile their platform was pumping out on a daily basis.
The comparison is evidently valid. The only reason that Facebook must act and gab.ai does not is solely due to the BOTTOM LINE. There is more at stake for them (loss of ad revenues) . Govt exacting severe financial punishment on laxity in dealing with free speech law violations soon gets the message thru. All of which is EQUITABLE. NONE of which of requires action by Internet server hosts, payment platforms. "Also, since you brought up the First Amendment, here's what the ruling of Gertz vs Robert Welch (1974) stated But there is no constitutional value in false statements of fact. Neither the intentional lie nor the careless error materially advances society's interest in "uninhibited, robust? and wide-open" debate on public issues. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. at 270. They belong to that category of utterances which "are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality." ( Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942) Although the erroneous statement of fact is not worthy of constitutional protection, it is nevertheless inevitable in free debate. "So tell me, RDBD, do you agree with the abundance of evidence that makes it clear that the Holocaust happened, or do you believe that the Holocaust is a hoax perpetrated by the Jewish conspiracy so that George Soros can control the world? I'm asking because the first option clearly states that, as they are making false statements of fact which have no constitutional value, the holocaust deniers of Gab are not protected by the First Amendment and therefore Gab should be held responsible for their apathetic attitude towards moderating their platform until others had to draw attention to the bile their platform was pumping out on a daily basis." Stating the above, I consider free speech. Whether tis fact or not, is moot. Somebody who continually makes such claims that are not fact is a fool, and can rightly be labelled so. They are at LIBERTY to continue to do so until they die of boredom / bankruptcy / natural causes. It is beholden on an OPEN society to confirm/refute the claims. Not to deny them access to Internet access/services and drive them to places where NOBODY can be aware of what they are saying or challenge their claims. That is TRUE liberty.
They don't judge at all. They have terms of service and if you don't abide by them, then they can stop serving you. The 1st Amendment doesn't guarantee you a platform, nor is gab being denied one.
Which clauses in all their terms of service did gab.ai break ?? It has to be something relating to "platform" and not "publisher" (lest the clauses be deemed unenforceable in court) .
