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 -
Three deeper problems: 1. Public spaces, which allow anyone access. 2. Democracy forces people who hate each other to occupy same space (see above). 3. Government has a monopoly on laws & law enforcement - prevents community laws and enforcement. P.S. Theatres/opera/cinemas.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Yes, and the narrow sense of "heckler's veto" is using the cops to shut down speech in the name of public safety.
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.