Technicals  🧾 📉

It’s not against free speech. I’m not advocating against her right to say it. I’m saying a child shouldn’t be used as a political pawn.

Again, you said that 16 year olds should not be activists for anything, I'm quoting you. The 1st amendment protects the right to protest and you're introducing an age requirement to that right. Seems anti-free speech to me. Idk how you can say that's not against free speech (1/3)

And I think children shouldn't be used as political pawns either, but the solution isn't to eliminate them from the political process. You use your speech and argue why the chessmasters of these pawns are arguing in bad faith and make a convincing case to the public. (2/3)

I support free speech & protest rights of all people, even children, even if I disagree with their message & strategy & would never argue to restrict one's ability to protest due to their age cause I believe in the principle of the 1st amend. I'm not convinced that you do. (3/3)

I didn’t say restrict their ability. No one here is saying children’s voices should be criminalized which is what an infringement on the First amendment actually is. The point is they’re 16 and shouldn’t be used on either side of the political spectrum for a serious debate.

You're right that no one is making a criminalization case, including me. Note how I said the "principle" of the 1st amend. I'm not claiming that you're making a legal case against the 1st. I'm arguing that you're making a principled case against the idea of free speech for minors

That’s a stretch. They clearly have the freedom to. I’m saying it’s immoral to do it. Plenty of things are legal and immoral.

So is it immoral for the child pawn or is it immoral 4 the chessmaster of that pawn? Because I said previously that I agree that adults shouldn't politically manipulate children. But your entire thread puts the onus on the child pawns instead of the chessmasters manipulating them