They defend _individual_ nazis, but rarely individual trans people, or black people, etc. Only fight overt _policies_ affecting latter.
....the idea that public organizations that display ads can't refuse hate speech or exclude products full of hate speech is not a good one.
-
-
Hate speech isn't a legally recognized category, so I'm not sure what you mean. They also refused birth control ads and ads with 1A text.
-
Refusing BC ads is something good to challenge them on. ACLU conflating the two issues is awful.
-
The principle here is not "they shouldn't be able to refuse ads".
-
The principle is that refusal should be narrow and well-justified, not based on arbitrary biases.
-
I agree. The issue here, as I understand it, is that the WMATA's rule was "controversial" content which is definitely arbitrary.
-
Yes, that's a bad rule. But by including M*lo in the case, they're implying that his content should also be acceptable.
-
It was an ad for a book. What about the ad itself is unacceptable? I can envision lots of things that aren't acceptable, but book ads? No.
-
A book that, as I understand it, names and incites harassment against specific individuals who are not public figures.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Plastering those things in front of their targets, on the public transit they rely on to get around, is harassment/threat.
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.