Treating "free speech" as independently protected by gov agnst private actors converts speech f/ natural right into gov-regulated privilege.
@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"? -
@justinamash Another strawman, doesn't apply. In that case the law used to charge the perp was passed with the excuse of protecting rights -
@MaximusEuropa In your mind, Trump's "freedom of speech" was violated. (I disagree.) What does that mean practically and what is the remedy? -
@justinamash The remedy is already in place. Police clear a path through blocked public roads into the venue using legally justified force -
@MaximusEuropa But that remedy would not be to address violation of "free speech" but rather to address other crimes/torts (e.g., trespass). -
@justinamash Sure it would. Those crimes/statutes exist to protect our (recognized) rights otherwise why do they exist? - 1 more reply
New conversation -
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.