HaShev
Platinum Member
- Jun 19, 2009
- 19,205
- 8,623
- 925
When reporting an enemy combatant flood of bitchute anti U.S. military propaganda posts coming from a clearly a butt hurt Iranian Regime Propaganda source the moderation reply from the social platform was:
"Moderation Report: The support team has reviewed your report(s). Reporting hateful or objectionable content that is lawful under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution may result in our support team not taking action. To manage offensive content, consider using Gab's options to mute, block, or apply word filters. Thank you."
that's all fine and dandy but you don't aid your enemies who are posting online terrorism in order to be protecting their rights to free speech to terrorize your military image used in recruitment of protective numbers of volunteers.
In other words you can't break one rule just to keep one rule (that has stipulations for such acts against the republic).
Is that social platform or any social platform aiding a foreign adversary such as Iran's regime and their propaganda machine ( a continued act of war) worse than Keeping free speech constitutional rights for said enemy combatant?
It is critical to recognize our true "intended" values in using the First Amendment rights and in specific analysis to combat foreign influence. In Federalist No. 68, Alexander Hamilton explained that the Constitution was intended to guard against “foreign powers” who sought “to gain an improper ascendant in our councils” through “cabal, intrigue, and corruption.” In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, John Adams reported that he shared Jefferson’s “apprehensi[on] of foreign Interference, Intrigue, [and] Influence;” evils which Adams predicted would recur “as often as Elections happen.” In his “farewell address” announcing his decision not to seek a third term as president, George Washington warned that “Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence . . . the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.”
"Moderation Report: The support team has reviewed your report(s). Reporting hateful or objectionable content that is lawful under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution may result in our support team not taking action. To manage offensive content, consider using Gab's options to mute, block, or apply word filters. Thank you."
that's all fine and dandy but you don't aid your enemies who are posting online terrorism in order to be protecting their rights to free speech to terrorize your military image used in recruitment of protective numbers of volunteers.
In other words you can't break one rule just to keep one rule (that has stipulations for such acts against the republic).
Is that social platform or any social platform aiding a foreign adversary such as Iran's regime and their propaganda machine ( a continued act of war) worse than Keeping free speech constitutional rights for said enemy combatant?
It is critical to recognize our true "intended" values in using the First Amendment rights and in specific analysis to combat foreign influence. In Federalist No. 68, Alexander Hamilton explained that the Constitution was intended to guard against “foreign powers” who sought “to gain an improper ascendant in our councils” through “cabal, intrigue, and corruption.” In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, John Adams reported that he shared Jefferson’s “apprehensi[on] of foreign Interference, Intrigue, [and] Influence;” evils which Adams predicted would recur “as often as Elections happen.” In his “farewell address” announcing his decision not to seek a third term as president, George Washington warned that “Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence . . . the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.”
