Or "intimidation," or whatever you're using as the operative word to justify curtailment of speech.
-
-
The same "nothing" that prevents that politician from making nonsensical claims now, under your definition of speech. That's my point.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @BenSpielberg @mtracey and
There's no way to definitively prevent abuse of these or any other principles 100% of the time. So our policy should aim at the right goals.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
I'd want to see what policy is being proposed.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Fair point. I don't currently have a specific proposal, so I'll have to think about it. I acknowledge it's not the easiest endeavor.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @BenSpielberg @mtracey and
That said, the basic principle is: the more power you have, the more restrictions one can put on your speech to protect the less powerful.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
That principle immediately runs into the basic quandary of, who adjudicates the power disparity, how exactly do you define "power," etc.
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @mtracey @BenSpielberg and
Not sure I'd like to have state authorities making such adjudications.
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
I mean, a general suspicion is fine, but you have that with any rule, just as you do with free speech.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @BenSpielberg @mtracey and
The problem is not unique to changing the principle here. It's a general problem & the reason for checks & balances.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
I agree that power disparities ought to be taken into consideration as a general principle, but the devil is always in the details.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
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.