Treating "free speech" as independently protected by gov agnst private actors converts speech f/ natural right into gov-regulated privilege.
-
-
@justinamash You're not describing protection of rights. You're describing conferring rights which existed before government through statute -
@justinamash The issue at hand is people physically blocking a peaceful assembly in a public venue that was leased, and doing it violently -
@MaximusEuropa We have criminal/tort/contract law to address that. Motive is irrelevant. It is not an issue of freedom of speech. -
@justinamash No one mentioned motive. Those statutes protect our natural rights from infringement by other individuals and are fine -
@MaximusEuropa You mentioned motive. Criminal violation is assault, battery, etc. Stopping a speech is motive. No separate penalty for that. -
@justinamash Not that I stipulate that motive is necessarily irrelevant but where did I mention motive? -
@justinamash Stopping speech (speech is a right) is an action. Blocking assembly (assembly is a right) is an action.pic.twitter.com/RA2EIMarYz
-
@MaximusEuropa So, if a protester punches someone in the face at a Trump rally, the criminal charge will be "violating free speech"? - 6 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
@justinamash honest question. Can you give an example of the “free speech” laws you are referring to. I’m not sure I follow your reasoning. -
@jm_cook Nope. Others are suggesting "free speech" protections against non-government actors. That implies they support "free speech" laws. -
@justinamash Thanks, I saw the middle of the thread first and misconstrued your original post. I appreciate the response.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@justinamash@MaximusEuropa Agreed on this much; tort applies free speech protections.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.