Those are principles worth defending.
-
-
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 -
Replying to @RichFelker @ACLU
I agree. The issue here, as I understand it, is that the WMATA's rule was "controversial" content which is definitely arbitrary.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @stevecheckoway @ACLU
Yes, that's a bad rule. But by including M*lo in the case, they're implying that his content should also be acceptable.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Public transit has a legitimate interest in not shoving content intended to make people feel threatened in their faces.
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.