I do not. But I also don't think we should be putting people in jail for crimes they don't commit in jurisdictions they're not in.
-
-
Those are principles worth defending.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @stevecheckoway @ACLU
Yes. The real idiocy of the Weev situation was that they ignored actual crimes against ppl (threats, harassment, & much worse iirc).
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
The principles you mention in the Weev case were ones worth defending for everyone, though. OTOH...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
....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.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RichFelker @ACLU
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @stevecheckoway @ACLU
Refusing BC ads is something good to challenge them on. ACLU conflating the two issues is awful.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
The principle here is not "they shouldn't be able to refuse ads".
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
The principle is that refusal should be narrow and well-justified, not based on arbitrary biases.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Deceiving audience about product? Inciting violence? Making public feel threatened? Attacking non-public-figure individuals? Etc. Reject.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
BTW lack of legal recognition of "hate speech" is a major problem of the US legal system. Other civilized countries do somewhat better.
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.