We all make mistakes. Defending his rights was the correct thing to do. Defending his character or his ideas? That's a different story.
-
-
Until the ones who listen act out on their hate. Ignorance is the height of privilege.
-
Acting is criminal. We already have laws to deter and punish acts. Banning certain speech does not defeat hate, it only makes it harder to dismantle the arguments being made. The power to police speech is the supreme privilege.
Fin de la conversation
Nouvelle conversation -
-
-
But Kathy didn’t ignore him, she called him her friend.
Merci. Twitter en tiendra compte pour améliorer votre fil. SupprimerSupprimer
-
-
-
Legally, Fuentes’ free speech has not been infringed upon and therefore needs no one to defend it.
-
Free speech can be threatened by more than the government. The 1A protects free speech from the government, not from all potential threats. The principle of free speech is in question due to deplatforming and brigading. Threats to free speech don't have to be legal to be real.
- Voir les réponses
Nouvelle conversation -
-
-
Yeah, let me hear you say that when people are screaming “burn him!” at you.
-
That isn't hate speech by any definition. It could however constitute a direct call to violence. That's already illegal.
Fin de la conversation
Nouvelle conversation -
Le chargement semble prendre du temps.
Twitter est peut-être en surcapacité ou rencontre momentanément un incident. Réessayez ou rendez-vous sur la page Twitter Status pour plus d'informations.