Read this thread, as it lays out what apparently serious people are thinking with their bare faces hanging out in public. 1/https://twitter.com/JeffreyASachs/status/1014886694909300738 …
-
-
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 -
-
-
That is a central theme in the work of Alexander Meiklejohn, one of the most important First Amendment theorists of the 20th Century.
-
Yeah, looks like I didn't invent a brand new idea here, a number of people have pointed out good references. But it sure doesn't seem to be a part of The Current Discourse.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
On point: https://www.thefire.org/say-it-again-for-the-people-in-the-back-freedom-to-speak-includes-the-freedom-to-hear/ … Also, my God, that tweetstorm. Why do I think the "authoritarianism" in his bio is not what he lectures on, so much as what he espouses?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
-
This is an occasional theme in First Amendment theory.
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.
. Banned in Sweden. SubGenius, Zhuangist, white-hat troll. Defrocked mathematician. Brain problems.