Offensive speech should be protected, but, if you speak only to offend, you're still an asshole. Classical Liberals are making a strategic error defending offensive speech in particular so often, instead of free speech in general.
-
-
I don't think what you're saying here is inconsistent with what I'm saying. I'm saying, yes, offensive speech should be protected. But it's a strategic/rhetorical mistake to be framed into defending it so much.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
People are losing sight of the relationship between free speech and responsibility. As children we were taught that screaming FIRE in a crowded theatre is less about speech and more about inciting unnecessary chaos.
-
Funny, that is something nobody had to teach us as children, it was too obvious. We had to be taught to listen to each other if we disagreed, because that went against our instincts. And to shut our mouth when the police was nearby (our government did not believe in free speech).
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The issue is with lack of rules on what is to be taken as offensive. In Indian legal system, the concept of free speech is limited by reasonable restrictions. FoS can never infringe the liberty of others. India doesn’t have a free speech problem despite pretty rowdy politics.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This is why I enjoyed the fighting doctrine and free speech, prior to SCOTUS's decimation of juris prudence
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.