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 @Mythspeak @St_Rev
No, and as a ticket purchaser you probably have fewer "rights" than before, having now entered into a contract with the playhouse. The owners, however, probably do have rights concerning the management of their business, including maintaining order during the performance.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Eh, a contract generally bundles a set of "rights" and obligations for both parties, so you get more of both. nb, though: In the narrow/legal sense the "heckler's veto" is using the cops to coerce the theater owner to shut down the performance in the name of public safety.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Which is to say the heckler's veto is an authoritarian exercise that deprives both speaker and audience of various 'rights' at gunpoint. If you're a revolutionary communist, you're OK with that, bc no ethical consumption under capitalism or something.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
(And of course there are no such things as natural rights, and nothing to stop the revcoms except other people's guns, but that's how the discourse is encoded.)
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.