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
Also consider: if heckler’s veto is legitimate, is it available to everyone? Imagine superpacs using it. Or even governments.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Yeah, it's outright weird that the left is getting psyched up about this kind of naked power-grabbing when they're at a huge disadvantage in objective terms.
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.