Well, yes. We need to be able to separate arguments about whether organisations have the right to be sexist etc from criticisms of whether they are being so. Same principle with no-platform policies. As soon as you criticise one, ppl will tell you its their right. https://twitter.com/LotakX/status/986896546548633601 …
-
-
But, in reality, 'It's not actually illegal' is not an ethical justification for anything. Very many unethical things are legal. The government only punishes disloyalty in the form of treason. This wouldn't make cheating on my husband or betraying a friend's confidence acceptable
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Is this distinctly american? I've never met anyone in Britain who thinks it's only about government.
-
Well I'm an American, it's hard to even imagine how this concept could be applied to private entities. Really?
-
Private entities can absolutely uphold or reject the principle of freedom of speech. They have done so for centuries. From essay:pic.twitter.com/sjMvhCa73e
-
There are so many ways in which you can encourage, obstruct, hinder or forbid the free exchange of diverse ideas, in your interactions, in your workplace, in your criticism or praise of organisations, in your parenting, in your own arguments.
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.