billionaire media tycoon and mayor of san francisco. vp @foundersfund. ringleader @hereticon. editor-in-chief @piratewires 
Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
One argument is that some people are too easily persuaded by bad faith actors in the marketplace of ideas, and those actors have an easier time than ever of being believed. And because that persuasion leads to all sorts of social maladies, censoring those actors is appropriate.
every outspoken politician in washington ascribes insidious, "hateful" motive to their political opponents. ambiguously defined, any law that would empower some kind of "hate watchmen" would be clearly a political weapon. and who watches the watchmen?
Anyone with HBO. (Ba-dumm tss!) But isn’t it easier and more effective to write an unambiguous law than it is to try to predict which of an extremist’s followers is going to shoot up a place of worship next?
Like, right now: -Extremist publishes “hate speech” (legally) -Guy reads “hate speech” (legally) -Guy parrots “hate speech” (legally) -Guy purchases gun (legally) -Guy shoots up shopping mall I kind of feel like most arguments for 1A/2A limits aim to make this stuff harder.
Hey bro, I hate to tell you about the existence of other countries, but they do exist, and their hatespeech laws haven't descended into this hypothetical dystopia that you keep alluding to: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech …
Which of these countries has a hate speech law you think we should adopt? How many of them have a First Amendment? By the way, dystopia is not hypothetical or fiction. We are in one right now.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
