kind of into it tbh, just insane the would-be censors don’t realize what they’re asking for
the left doesn’t seem to understand what legal intervention here would look like. if the gov steps in social media platforms will not become *more* censorious, they’ll be forced to liberalize. any speech short of an explicit incitement to violence is constitutionally protected.https://twitter.com/mariachong/status/1137034789087670272 …
-
-
Tämä twiitti ei ole saatavilla.
-
-
-
-
Tämä twiitti ei ole saatavilla.
-
that rhetoric is definitely coming
Keskustelun loppu
-
-
-
1) I’m not the Left. I’m a conservative Christian. 2) I’m WARNING the government will step in, which likely means I think it’s better if private entities self-regulate. 3) Simplistic reactionary thinking is dumb. 4) “Private party declines to host your shitty words” ≠ censorship
-
it’s the literal definition of censorship, though, yes, *legal* where private. however we’ve never seen private censorship at the scale of *the entire public square* before. we’re approaching the de facto negation of 1A. worth asking if we’re ok with that (imo we shouldn’t be)
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
Tämä twiitti ei ole saatavilla.
-
far left believes in hate speech laws (look to europe, where they’re normalized). this is the beginning of that debate.
Keskustelun loppu
-
-
-
Purest form of free speech inherently involves the least amount of government intervention possible.
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.