This man was shut it down on Youtube, Spotify, Apple and Facebook

I do too, but only because it makes you cry.

Is this some kind of a joke or are you not reading the same texts as the others? Also, how and why in the fuck is Richard Stallman brought into this? He's not a politician. Where are you all even going this? I'd suggest back to:

But that's to support freedom, why should any of those private companies be forced to broadcast a person's opinions that don't match their own?

It would be like me crying about having my freedom taken away because Alex Jones won't let me play Soviet marching music on his own property.

As I said, you alt-righters don't know what freedom actually is. It's not simply always getting your own way at other people's expense you fucking cry babies.

This. He even is refusing to use these platforms.
Its not like Gab, that's being held accomplice of a crime, its being deplatformed by its hosting, registrar and paymen processor.
Its the FSF suffering the same?

Going with this*

upvoted

>He's not a politician.
He lobby for democrats and greens though. Check his personal page. From environment issues to abortion rights

>a kike being a democrat/lefty
Wow, I'm surprised

They were complicit in that though, freedom of speech doesn't mean you need to be that bloody irresponsible that you allow someone who talks about shooting Jews to continue unimpeded until the worse happens.

That's the other problem with "Free speech advocacy", free speech should always be used responsibily and with common fucking decency. Why to prove you respect freedom of speech do you need to use hate speech?

stallman is too cowardly to push back against the sjw/tranny hoard

>I have the freedom to decide that everyone secretly agrees with me but are too scared to say it

Get fucked

>constitution
Youtube, Spotify, Apple, and Facebook are global corporations?

Attached: ZEBxqIA.jpg (800x450, 32K)

>constitution
more like constipation LMAO

I don't get it. What does open source software have to do with Facebook collecting your data?

>What you don't have is the right to force your opinions to be hosted on a privately owned platform that instead used their right to free speech and opinion to disagree with you and refuse to broadcast your opinions.
The ethics behind this is more ambiguous than you think.
Suppose Alex Jones owns Google stock (and thus was an owner of Google)
Is it now impossible for Google to ban Alex Jones without violating property rights (or the NAP for you ancaps)?
It would fundamentally be majority stakeholders violating the property rights of minority stakeholders.
Once you follow this logic, it becomes obvious that publically traded companies must be subject to different standards, perhaps they must even be bound to the US Constitution when dealing with US Citizens.

>He lobby for democrats and greens though. Check his personal page. From environment issues to abortion rights
Who. Cares? He can't affect policies, those are just his personal views. Also, why is any of this discussed on Jow Forums? Why is this thread still up?

>I love free speech
>If you express any political opinion you're a politician and have to take a stance on my pet issue
really makes you drink

Or you could just stop huffing glue long enough to realize how stupid you're being.

Entirely justified, see:
youtube.com/watch?v=ojHiIbD18WY

Link? That would BTFO these losers.

>No word from Richard Stallman.
ITT the clearly retarded on full display.
stallman.org/archives/2018-jul-oct.html#12_August_2018_(Censoring_Alex_Jones)

bump for interest.

Not an argument.

>stallman.org/archives/2018-jul-oct.html#12_August_2018_(Censoring_Alex_Jones)
Look at all the fucking astroturfers in this thread saying "lol their private companies, they should be able to do whatever they want!"

I'd advise you piece of shit astroturfers to read this line from Stallman's post:
>But each of these companies affects hundreds of millions of people, perhaps billions. Their influence is so great that people and governments ask them, or try to pressure them, to censor certain things so that those things *will not be available.*

Google, Facebook, and Twitter effectively control online discourse. If those three companies decide to silence you - you *are* silenced. You cannot get your message out, anywhere, on any reasonable scale.

When a small handful of companies have that much power over speech, period, they necessarily must be held accountable to the first amendment. Just like a number of private companies that have been SUCCESSFULLY sued for first amendment violations - they had too much control over public discussion, and allowing them to censor people was (and is) a huge problem for society.

Attached: 1514934519097.png (400x400, 327K)

>If those three companies decide to silence you - you *are* silenced. You cannot get your message out, anywhere, on any reasonable scale

Fucking citation needed. Jesus Christ. If you can't get your extremist bullshit political views out on Facebook or Google you come to Jow Forums and post on every board except Jow Forums. Everyone knows this.

Remember when 'statist cuck' was Jow Forumstards' favorite insult? Those were the days.

Attached: 1511898732293.jpg (800x450, 53K)

Did you even read Stallman's point? > But it is dangerous that a few companies have so much power.

>If each one were small, I'd stand up for each one's right to decide what not to publish. But each of these companies affects hundreds of millions of people, perhaps billions. Their influence is so great that people and governments ask them, or try to pressure them, to censor certain things so that those things will not be available.

>This is developing into a contradiction — a system of imposed censorship that legitimizes itself by pretending not to be one.

>I don't believe that this censorship will be limited to right-wing extremists. Oil companies have lots of money to spend on marginalizing the sane voice of alarm. Billionaires have lots to spend on marginalizing the demand to restore democracy.

lol stallman said bullshit. Never though he would actually right something like that down.

desu they only care about sane people, or at least people who aren't roleplaying as an insane person for $$$

I'm sure he'll manage milking donations for many years to come, user. don't you worry.

Stallmann its a fucking moron if he believes that no one is trying to follow the "feel good" son of the liberal democracy he preachs.

>they are complicit
How?
Under the US law definition of Free Speech they literally didn't anything wrong.
They didn't kill anyone. They didn't gave the kike killer the direction and the weapons to carry its attack.
In fact, I would be surprised if they are involved in any kind of judicial action. The only ones that are sanctioning GAB are those companies, that are too afraid to lose brownie points.
>Why to prove you respect freedom of speech do you need to use hate speech?
Because its how US law concive freedom of speech. The only speech that isn't protected as a free speech is that speech that incites inmediate danger and disruption.
How you can respect freedom of speech if you categorize some forms of speech as "forbiden"? That's how control of though begins.

Those are all privatately owned companies and can kick whoever they want off. It would be nice to have a free as in freedom open source alternative to YouTube though. But that will never happen.