But I'd like to point out an angle that's occurred to me, but I haven't seen clearly framed before: Does the right to free speech not imply a right to *listen*? Not a right *to* an audience, but a right to *be* an audience? 2/
-
-
Show this thread
-
If so -- and I haven't seen any arguments against it -- then the heckler's veto is obviously illegitimate. Party A wants to speak, party B wants to listen, party C wants to interfere with that transaction. But B has not consented to listen to C. C has no right to an audience! 3/
Show this thread -
Cartoon with A, B, and Stalin. "I consent to be heard!" "I consent to listen!" "Isn't there someone you forgot to ask?" 4/ https://twitter.com/ortoiseortoise/status/1015047074331742208 …
This Tweet is unavailable.Show this thread
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.
. Banned in Sweden. SubGenius, Zhuangist, white-hat troll. Defrocked mathematician. Brain problems.