They banned porn because it's very hard to police it and prevent illegal content, like child porn. That's how opposition groups try to take down websites, and with all the difficulty Gab has faced during its existence, I don't blame them for trying to mitigate vectors of attack. (Yes, the creator of Gab doesn't approve of porn, since he is a Christian, but he stated that that's not his reason for banning porn in the first place.)
That said, Parler bans porn too, so if that's the only issue people have with Gab, then Parler is hardly an alternative.
In any case, porn is not classified as "freedom of speech", but rather "freedom of expression", which is NOT constitutionally protected.
In any case, porn is not classified as "freedom of speech", but rather "freedom of expression", which is NOT constitutionally protected.
I found this claim interesting and have done some reading. Can you point me in the direction of anything that suggests any legal distinction ever, anywhere between freedom of speech and freedom of expression?
I agree that it's necessary to be wary of how far we go in the interpretation of that decision, as it can indeed lead to censorship. But at the same time, the concept of freedom of speech was put into place for the exchange of ideas and political protection, not to endorse wank material. That said, I can hardly fault sites like Gab for disallowing it, especially considering there are a far larger number of sites providing exclusively that type of material in a much more easily searched and categorized presentation.
Just created an account I didn't care much for gab so hopefully this is better
I made an account there when it was first launched and could not get into it either. It just seems unpolished.
Well Gab had its "porn is evil" moment so good luck there.
They banned porn because it's very hard to police it and prevent illegal content, like child porn. That's how opposition groups try to take down websites, and with all the difficulty Gab has faced during its existence, I don't blame them for trying to mitigate vectors of attack. (Yes, the creator of Gab doesn't approve of porn, since he is a Christian, but he stated that that's not his reason for banning porn in the first place.) That said, Parler bans porn too, so if that's the only issue people have with Gab, then Parler is hardly an alternative. In any case, porn is not classified as "freedom of speech", but rather "freedom of expression", which is NOT constitutionally protected.
I found this claim interesting and have done some reading. Can you point me in the direction of anything that suggests any legal distinction ever, anywhere between freedom of speech and freedom of expression?
I guess freedom of expression is probably too broad a distinction, but I was thinking along the lines of the argument of Miller vs California (1973):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California
I agree that it's necessary to be wary of how far we go in the interpretation of that decision, as it can indeed lead to censorship. But at the same time, the concept of freedom of speech was put into place for the exchange of ideas and political protection, not to endorse wank material. That said, I can hardly fault sites like Gab for disallowing it, especially considering there are a far larger number of sites providing exclusively that type of material in a much more easily searched and categorized presentation.
Then neither of them will be a full alternative to Twitter. Look at what happened with Tumblr.