Except for defending the right of free speech for Nazis, because the 1st Amendment separates us from dictatorships.
-
-
En réponse à @AlanNeff
You are under no obligation to defend the speech of those whose stated goal is to take your speech away.
2 réponses 0 Retweet 7 j'aime -
En réponse à @ChrisWarcraft
Have to disagree here. Got into law because I admired ACLU defending right of repellent Nazis to march in Skokie in 60s.
2 réponses 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @AlanNeff
And where has that led us? Not being snarky, empirically speaking, what has defending Nazis gotten us?
2 réponses 0 Retweet 1 j'aime -
En réponse à @ChrisWarcraft
I know you're not being snarky. But see Niemoller: when you take away one group ('s rights), you open the door.
4 réponses 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
-
En réponse à @ChrisWarcraft
2/2 My point is stand up to them, debate them, ridicule them constantly. But don't deny right to speak. It martyrs/empowers.
3 réponses 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @AlanNeff
This isn't a theoretical argument. The same thing is happening now that happened back then, almost step for step.
2 réponses 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @ChrisWarcraft @AlanNeff
And I think "if you advocate genocide you lose your right to speak" is a very bright line that's obvious when crossed.
1 réponse 0 Retweet 1 j'aime -
En réponse à @ChrisWarcraft
We'll have to agree to disagree. Advocating genocide - odious, repellent, you choose adjective - is not committing genocide.
3 réponses 0 Retweet 0 j'aime
And let's be perfectly clear - the only reason they aren't committing it is because they don't think they have enough power yet.
Le chargement semble prendre du temps.
Twitter est peut-être en surcapacité ou rencontre momentanément un incident. Réessayez ou rendez-vous sur la page Twitter Status pour plus d'informations.