Posted on 06/09/2021 8:55:00 AM PDT by RandFan
Andrew Torba revealed that Jared Kushner would not allow President Trump onto Gab unless the free speech platform banned criticism of Jewish people and Israel.
Torba, the CEO of Gab, spoke to Lauren Witzke of TruNews on Tuesday, and discussed his attempts to bring President Trump onto his free speech social network after he was “totally nuked from the entire mainstream internet” in January this year. “All I wanted to do was to give him his voice back, because there’s a hundred million people or more that want to hear what he has to say,” Torba told Witzke, but as previously reported, said that Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, and his “cronies” were the ones that blocked access to Gab.
Torba said Kushner and his cronies tried to get Torba to “sell out” and “compromise on Gab’s free speech policies,” suggesting that Gab “clean up [their] image,” before President Trump was allowed on. Witzke queried Torba into exactly what people Kushner wanted banned, and Torba revealed that he “specifically had problems with people criticizing Jewish people and Zionism and policies related to Israel”:
“That’s specifically what I was told, in that you have to do something about these people. He called them Jew-haters, I call them Jew-criticizers,” said Torba
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalfile.com ...
Bingo. There is no such thing as hate speech, only speech you hate.
A very good post. I read it twice!
There is room to be critical of Israel. Personally I don’t like how the U.S. taxpayer subsidizes their military to a degree via “foreign aid” and believe they should stand on their own two feet (many Israeli’s agree with this)..
We have had spirited debates here about it and it has never turned nasty or hateful.
Are saying you would be OK with leftists taking over the comments on Free Republic?
yup and mccarthy and lindsey, et al.
.
but, imo, i think he was really spooked and hamstrung by the appointment of muller as a special prosecutor on the fake russia collusion gambit by the adminstrative state. he kinda panic’ed about that and made it bigger than it really was. i think it obsessed him, when he should have been expecting it from the get go. the administrative state was always his main enemy, and for all the “drain the swamp” rhetoric, he really accomplished nothing on that front, because his close advisors/lawyers didn’t let him.
I swear.....I’m just going to bite my tongue
Mark Levin
Breitbart
Kushner
Most Freepers
It’s ridiculous
Anything and anyone should be able to be criticized in a republic ...a free one
You and I get this
Trust me most here do not.
Free Republic is specifically a conservative site. I’m saying if you want a free speech alternative to twitter, then you’re going to see comments that you disagree with. There’s a difference between a conservative site and a free speech site.
thanks- i just cant see jared, the son in law- bossing around his father in law-
Shouldn’t you just say: “moderated” vs. “unmoderated”.
Gab is slow because no one will host them because its unmoderated.
Not the little hats...
Free speech is free speech. Those who are triggered are feable minded. I know the world of words can be a cesspool.
All sites are moderated because if they don’t they lose their hosting. See: Parler and why Gab is so slow
If Greg Abbott wants to end Gab for what he considers ‘antisemitic speech” then Abbott does not believe in free speech. He then is no friend of liberty or a free republic.
I’ve never been on Gab or Parler. They may be filled with antisemitic speech, racist speech, hateful speech, or disgusting speech. I find much of the speech of politicians, political pundits, academics and social justice warriors on the news networks offensive. However I would not supporting taking away their free speech rights, no matter how much I am offended.
I prefer giving vulgar, offensive and hateful speech a platform over allowing government, Twitter/Facebook/Google, academics, or “independent” committees to censor speech. If Gab is offensive, I will not look. If a hater begins spewing garbage on the nightly news, I switch to another channel.
The right of free speech does not compel anyone to listen. I know where speech offensive to me occurs so I know where to avoid it. If offensive speech intrudes into my world I know how to ignore it, tune it out, walk away, or turn it off. It may be annoying to filter and avoid offensive speech but I prefer freedom to the tyranny of censorship which once imposed becomes insufferable and unavoidable.
What easily offended woke censors of today do not understand is once those who offend are terminated, the fist they use against others will be turned on them.
You can criticize anyone you want on your own platform. Just don't demand others let you use their property to do it.
I agree with you. The platform must have a block feature so that people can filter out those who refuse to discipline themselves.
None of our “rights” are worth a hoot of we fail to utilize decency and self control. Is there a place for offensive speech? Absolutely. Most especially when seeking to abuseive control.
But if a platform is going to allow hatred towatd Jews, then hateful and offensive speech needs to be allowed toward ALL other groups which also includes the “n” word and any other epithet for groups of people.
“Are saying you would be OK with leftists taking over the comments on Free Republic?”
That’s a straw man argument. I use FR realizing its rules, and Gab realizing its lack of rules. FR is not a “free speech” site, and I’m fine with that. Gab is, and I’m fine with that.
From what I’ve seen on Gab, the majority of the anti-semites on the site look like leftist trolls.
Gab has a lot of anti-semites on it. Of course it could be leftists polluting the site, I would not be surprised at that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.