6 ms·
Inciting violence should not be defended as free speech. In fact it’s not considered free speech. Let alone the fact the usage being blocked violates the very c
by djakaitis 6y ago
Inciting violence should not be defended as free speech. In fact it’s not considered free speech. Let alone the fact the usage being blocked violates the very clear terms of service.
- perryizgr8 6y agoInciting violence is free speech, by definition.
- landryraccoon 6y agoYou don't think limiting free speech to speech that does not incite illegal violence is not a reasonable limitation?
- perryizgr8 6y agoAny limitation to speech implies that speech was never free, by definition. So, there is no reasonable limitation that preserves the "free" part of "free speech".
- landryraccoon 6y agoLet's consider some implications of what you're saying. - Slander and libel are restrictions on free speech. - Restrictions on any type of public insult, racial slur, hate speech or other derogatory speech are restrictions on free speech. - Any restriction on the advertising of explicit pornography or illegal activities would also be a restriction on free speech. If your argument is that absolute, then no, I don't support absolute free speech without qualification. I can't prove it, but I would assume that the majority of the population would rightfully take the same position that free speech should not utterly absolute with no restriction at all.
- perryizgr8 6y agoIt doesn't matter if the majority thinks like me or not. That's the point of free speech, to let people think and speak freely. If you're against free speech, you have every right to be, but don't try to justify it by twisting words. Just say it: I do not support free speech.
- Bud 6y agoBefore pontificating so very much about what "free speech" is, would it be too much to ask if I requested that you learn the most basic concepts about free speech, and also figure out that actions by Twitter have no relevance whatsoever to the freedom of expression as defined in the First Amendment?
- perryizgr8 6y ago> would it be too much to ask if I requested that you learn the most basic concepts about free speech If you think I'm missing something, tell me. > figure out that actions by Twitter have no relevance whatsoever to the freedom of expression as defined in the First Amendment? So? What's the first amendment got to do in this situation?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- bebopcowboy 6y agoThis should be decided in a courtroom, not by oligarch tech CEOs
- gulag4nerds 6y agoIt's not so black and white is it though? What kind of violence? And against who? And who's committing it? For instance just a year ago it was totally acceptable (in the West at least) to incite violence in the form of a coup against the democratically elected leader of Bolivia on all major platforms. To the best of my knowledge no one was suspended and there weren't any calls to de-platform Twitter, Fox, CNN, etc. Probably for the best.