@sarahjeong Oh, I just mean Article 19 of the Universal Declaration, primarily. Facebook's TOS are far more strict.
-
@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 -
@jilliancyork on the other side, porn is defined in relation to the women in it. porn is only that which degrades women -
@jilliancyork re: Brandenburg, etc., online harassment against women often skirts right up against it being a direct threat -
@jilliancyork And it's funny, b/c A LOT of seminal jurisprudence pre-Brandenburg is dudes threatening to punch each other over speech -
@jilliancyork and that's the line that gets drawn: if it's speech that inevitably provokes a punchout, it's not protected -
@jilliancyork harassing women online is effectively silencing while remaining protected speech-- -
@jilliancyork (as long as it skirts against direct threat) & I believe it's protected b/c those who invented FIrst Am in 20th century ... -
@jilliancyork ... not only never experienced that, they couldn't conceive of that being a thing. [becoming less eloquent as I get hungry] -
@jilliancyork Anyways, there's a rash of other issues there as well: other int'l standards, third party platforms as markets of speech, etc -
@jilliancyork It's complicated and that's why I have been writing a response for like three months & I'm still not sure how it's coming out - 11 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.