That's the legal answer. Doxxing journalists and picketing their homes if they criticize the president is also speech.
-
-
Losing your advertisers doesn't prevent you from speaking, it just prevents you from getting a bunch of money from advertisers for speaking.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
One side is saying “exercise the Constitutional right to direct where your money goes.” Personal agency, distaste, non-association, protest are rights also—not Orwellian boogeymen. I hate the innovation of the totalitarian specter when it’s unwarranted.
-
You’re saying Americans who boycotted Coca-Cola for apartheid complicity (secondary boycott) are Orwellian, when in actuality these kinds of civil rights pressures can be 1) Effective 2) Moral. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-09-18-mn-11241-story.html …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
When one side of the argument is “immigrants don’t deserve basic human rights” how exactly do you debate that? It seems somewhat futile, and just because someone has an opinion doesn’t mean we have to debate it
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This is embarrassing
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I thought corporations were People? if they’ve delved into the marketplace of ideas and decided to remove their money from the literal marketplace it sounds like “more free speech” is working just fine
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Some arguments should be ended. Not by violence or government action, of course, but by good old fashioned social pressure.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
What did Orwell write about boycotts?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.