Maybe we shld rename free speech 'free expression of opinions' so ppl can't point out that some things done verbally are rightly illegal.
I started by saying perhaps FoS shld be renamed 'free expression of opinions'. That's what I'm referring to.
-
-
Okay - is calling someone's employer and telling that person "John Smith is misogynistic and hates women" covered?
-
John Smith is allowed to be misogynistic & hate women & to say so.
-
But lets say John Smith isn't. Let's say the speaker is, say, an angry teenager from Tumblr who doesn't know what misogyny means
-
I don't really care about this. Fine details of what is & isn't slander is another tangential conversation. Talking abt ideas.
-
But the devil is in the details. Big picture stuff is easy. Finding the lines is hard.
-
I'm sure it is. I am talking about the big picture now tho because ppl are confusing & blurring big concepts.
-
Well, your stated goal only covers half the problem in public discourse. It doesn't cover the "only applies to gov!" people.
-
Huh? Theyre the ones who step in & want to restrict discussion to US law when I'm talking abt the big principle I just described.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
I mean, it's the speaker's opinion. It may not have basis in reality, but it's still the speaker's opinion.
-
I'm not interested in defending rights & wrongs of talking about people. Defending the right to express ideas & opinions.
-
And seeing this as different to harmful actions. Slander could certainly be a harmful action but not given much thought to cases.
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.