@sarahjeong I do, but it's not just re: rape. Not sure if you saw what I wrote about it:http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/05/30/facebook_and_hate_speech_the_company_should_not_be_in_the_business_of_censorship.html …
-
@sarahjeong In what way?
@jilliancyork So I am concerned about a sensible formulation of free speech that isn't tied to First Am tradition
-
-
@sarahjeong But I am confused - do you see the 1st Am influencing FB's policies/processes? I don't. -
@jilliancyork I believe obscenity law is problematic fr women / also that fighting words, imminent harm, Brandenburg are implicitly gendered -
@sarahjeong Interesting, care to elaborate? -
@jilliancyork Re: obscenity, it's ultimately judged by community standards, but other common phrases are problematic re: feminism-- -
@jilliancyork "prurient interest" for example. Basically it's subjective and nebulous but it is implemented in a weird patriarchal way -
@jilliancyork BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, feminist attempts to redefine obscenity have in general been rejected -
@jilliancyork e.g., Catharine Mackinnon's porn thing, which I totally disagree with, but it makes a very bizarre juxtaposition -
@jilliancyork On one side, the "community" (oh come on, we all know it's just the flip side of male gaze) decides what porn is - 20 réponses de plus
Nouvelle conversation -
Le chargement semble prendre du temps.
Twitter est peut-être en surcapacité ou rencontre momentanément un incident. Réessayez ou rendez-vous sur la page Twitter Status pour plus d'informations.