Or you'd have ppl discussing torture porn in primary schools, basket-weaving at medical conventions, no work getting done.
We could say we PUNISH potential immigrants for not being in danger coz we prioritise those who are.
-
-
That would not be about their opinions though. It would not be a violation of principle of free speech
-
It still isn't.We're not excluding them for what they say but what they might vote in, how they might live & affect others
-
Which may not be freedom of speech but it is about freedom of thought/belief/conscience
-
Which is related to freedom of speech
-
Not in the sense that I am upholding.I'm just fine with vetting ppl to avoid increasing the religious right in a democracy
-
because of the consequences to gender equality, LGBT equality, freedom of speech, reproductive freedom etc.
-
Those things MUST be protected but I wouldn't vet,I would just limit no. of immigrants let in so those things weren't threatened
-
I would. People are responsible for their own values & I'd want to prioritise those whose were compatible with lib democ.
- 17 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
In fact, we limit immigration necessarily & are selective on various including need, skills to offer, compatible values.
-
I guess I am coming at this from a very strict libertarian perspective
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.