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 …
-
Show this thread
-
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/
7 replies 7 retweets 41 likesShow 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/
2 replies 3 retweets 33 likesShow this thread -
St. Rev ☯️ 🏴 😻 Retweeted
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 …
St. Rev ☯️ 🏴 😻 added,
This Tweet is unavailable.2 replies 6 retweets 38 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @St_Rev
I think the right to listen is encompassed by the right of assembly. It clearly does not imply a specific right to listen without distraction.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @lyrra_sark @datawench
What distinguishes such distracting, unwanted speech from harassment or assault?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
If there's no such right, I can shut down anyone's speech completely if I have a big enough mob with enough free time.
-
-
Replying to @St_Rev
I’d be interested to see someone test the threshold of violation of such an inferred right.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 2 more replies
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.