Ah! Perhaps this is it.Sometimes people think of freedom of speech as the law of their particular country but this is different to the principle,Laws around this only apply to government. I am speaking of individual commitments to advocating & promoting the free exchange of ideashttps://twitter.com/notCursedE/status/971307025773793280 …
-
Show this thread
-
5 replies 3 retweets 16 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @HPluckrose
You're missing or at least need to address that there is never unanimous consent and competing ideas often are not filtered on their moral merit. There is an intersection b/w protesting established ideas while offering opposing ones. A battle of neutral ground with fluid rules.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HereInThere @HPluckrose
Not defending the actions of the few protesters but "free speech" narrative is scapegoat. An NFL player can't kneel during the National Anthem. Protests must be orderly and out of the way. Historically the most effective have always been the most rambunctious. Where is the line?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HereInThere
That doesn't prevent anyone from speaking. The line is at stopping people from hearing a speaker they have invited to speak.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Your version of Free speech as principle is counter intuitive to human interaction. If we were logical robots I'd have to concede the point, but the fact that someone goes to repeat a message at one site does not constitute silencing of an opinion. It is an inconvenient protest.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Then it's not a problem. If no-one is silenced and the people can still hear the speaker they want to hear, the free exchange of ideas has not been prevented.
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.