And I think "if you advocate genocide you lose your right to speak" is a very bright line that's obvious when crossed.
-
-
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 -
En réponse à @AlanNeff
Why give them the ability to accumulate that power?
1 réponse 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @ChrisWarcraft
Chris, this is really tough for me. I hate advocating free speech for Nazis. But I don't want my speech limited.
1 réponse 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
-
En réponse à @ChrisWarcraft
NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. Please, don't say that. I'm opposed to limitations on speech. That's all.
2 réponses 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @AlanNeff
If you don't advocate genocide, then your speech is safe. This is not a hard concept.
1 réponse 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @ChrisWarcraft
This is the argument about whether "advocating genocide" = shouting "Fire!" in crowded theater. We disagree.
1 réponse 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @AlanNeff
Right, but you're basing your argument off theoreticals, whereas I'm basing mine off empirical evidence.
1 réponse 0 Retweet 1 j'aime -
En réponse à @ChrisWarcraft
I would argue that what enabled Nazis to take power, was ruling class thinking it could control them. That is happening.
1 réponse 0 Retweet 0 j'aime
And their right to speech was protected, yes? And we saw what happened, yes?
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.