If we're going to stop people from talking about Scott (to maintain his "right to privacy") then we're saying they don't have the right to speak.https://twitter.com/Sigismond_bis/status/1361940709566083072?s=19 …
-
-
Replying to @Eristae @arthur_affect and
Indeed in most countries you can't say anything you want publicly. But I was answering to a specific tweet that wasn't specifically about Scott
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Sigismond_bis @arthur_affect and
It applies to literally anyone. It applies if we're talking about Trump or the Pope or Scott. If we're prevented from speaking, we're denied the right to speak. That's what it means.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @Eristae @arthur_affect and
In USA is it legal to publicly display online the personal address of someone who didn't consent to it?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Sigismond_bis @Eristae and
No, there are laws specifically against revealing addresses, Social Security numbers, and similar information However, revealing the legal name of someone using an Internet pseudonym does not fall under these laws
1 reply 1 retweet 11 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Eristae and
What, you mean you cannot state facts you know to be true? I guess freedom of speech doesn't exist in USA
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Sigismond_bis @Eristae and
Wow, so I guess we're in that situation where we have two ridiculous extremes -- "Here are Arthur's current GPS coordinates and re's his bank account password" vs. "Nobody may say anything about me unless it is to call me a handsome genius" -- asking which one we're closer to
2 replies 2 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Eristae and
Sigismond Retweeted
How exactly is it anyone's business that a "famous" person cheats on their spouse? https://mobile.twitter.com/arthur_affect/status/1361819068790005761 …
Sigismond added,
This Tweet is unavailable.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Sigismond_bis @Eristae and
Do you think it being "nobody's business" should mean it's illegal to tell people about it
2 replies 2 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Sigismond_bis and
Just saying, there's a pretty obvious logical contradiction between the SSC-verse advertising themselves as "We value FREE SPEECH above all else" and their equally strong maxim of "We HATE THE FUCKING MEDDLING JOURNALIST MEDIA"
3 replies 5 retweets 15 likes
(It's because their definition of "speech" is absurdly self-serving At its most consistent what they mean is "Speech means abstract debate about theories and shit and not saying specific things about people" But generally it's just "YOU aren't allowed to talk about ME")
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.