As I said 2 days ago: We can't let ANYONE decide what's "hate" speech. What the hell good is free speech if it doesn't protect "hate" speech? "Hate" speech IS free speech. For God's sakes, we don't need "free speech" to defend "Kumbaya" or "I love puppies" or "have a nice day"
-
-
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Had to read it twice
End of conversation
-
-
-
Protecting hate speech is an incidental effect of protecting free speech. Protecting free speech is intended to protect all speech including offensive speech. The inclusion of hate speech is a necessary social price for protecting free speech.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
If "hate speech" is not protected, as much as we don't like it, then free speech has no meaning.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The way it's worded, I had to vote no. Free speech allows for hate speech but doesn't protect it.
-
You’re right. It shows why it matters the specific way a question is framed in the survey.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
no free speech is intended to protect people's rights to express themselves. "hate speech"(a term whose definition is kinda subjective)just so happens to be a part of free speech. free speech was not intended to protect hate speech and only hate speech.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
free speech protects ALL speech
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.