So should it only be considered free speech if it has been fact checked or phrased as an opinion?
-
-
Replying to @livebeef
I started by saying perhaps FoS shld be renamed 'free expression of opinions'. That's what I'm referring to.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Okay - is calling someone's employer and telling that person "John Smith is misogynistic and hates women" covered?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @livebeef
John Smith is allowed to be misogynistic & hate women & to say so.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
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
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @livebeef
I don't really care about this. Fine details of what is & isn't slander is another tangential conversation. Talking abt ideas.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
But the devil is in the details. Big picture stuff is easy. Finding the lines is hard.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @livebeef
I'm sure it is. I am talking about the big picture now tho because ppl are confusing & blurring big concepts.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Well, your stated goal only covers half the problem in public discourse. It doesn't cover the "only applies to gov!" people.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @livebeef
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 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I'm quite sure I'm only covering a tiny fraction of issues around this. Being very specific abt expression of ideas.
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.