A hostile environment does not stop people from speaking, If someone chooses not to speak because of the environment then that is on them, They are not being forced to stop speaking they are choosing to but a ban prevents someone from speaking completely
-
-
Replying to @ElectricLizardz @GearyDigit and
If you were a jew, and found yourself in a town hall meeting with a bunch of Nazis, would you really step up to the podium? Could anyone blame you for not doing it? Can you not see how such an environment creates an effective "soft ban" on certain speech and people?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SortofSalient @GearyDigit and
Yes I would, If I was in that situation then I would as long as I have my physical protection guaranteed then I would. Quite Simply a hostile environment does not stop people from speaking, I can understand that it might make it uncomfortable but it does not prevent them...
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ElectricLizardz @GearyDigit and
If you are truly pro free speech, then you should be against hate speech. You would realize that hate speech, PREVENTS the free speech of other people, it just does so in a way to try and circumvent the technical rules. That's the point. That's always been the point.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SortofSalient @GearyDigit and
Hate Speech is Free Speech, Free Speech means that all speech is free not just some speech, People insulting certain groups of people does not prevent that group from speaking and if they choose not to then that is on them
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ElectricLizardz @GearyDigit and
Hate speech impedes marginalized people's speech. I don't care if someone can technically still participate, I care if they can effectively participate at the same level as everyone else. It's for this reason banning people for hate speech is a pro free speech action.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SortofSalient @GearyDigit and
I simply disagree, Insults do not prevent someone from speaking, They can still choose to speak and if they choose not to then that is on them, I quite simply do not know how someone can delude themself so much as to believe that censoring speech is supporting free speech.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ElectricLizardz @GearyDigit and
A black person in the deep south during Jim Crow era, was technically equal to a white person. But effectively, there was a vast disparity. An LGBTQ person is technically equal to a Christian, but they don't have the same effective protections and gaurentees in society.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SortofSalient @GearyDigit and
That is a completely different back in that time there were laws that made them unequal however on Twitter. That is also a completely different scenario, I am talking about speech and your freedom to express yourself...
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ElectricLizardz @GearyDigit and
The law was called separate but equal. The literal law said, that they were both equal. My example is to prove a point, that just because there is a technical standard, that doesn't mean it is effectively true.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
I would be ok with that then, As long as they were both free to speak then i would agree with the speech rules, I simply do not believe that insults completely ban people from speaking since they are still free to speak.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.