.@ma_franks @EndRevengePorn @schemaly Taking violations srsly doesn't require criminalizing speech. See @sarahjeong's @WiredOpinion piece.
-
@schemaly@ma_franks@EndRevengePorn@CathyReisenwitz I do think 1A has a gendered slant (Brandenburg test). But I also don’t think 1A is +
@schemaly @ma_franks @EndRevengePorn @CathyReisenwitz the most important reason to hesitate w/r/t criminalization.
-
-
@sarahjeong@ma_franks@EndRevengePorn@CathyReisenwitz d'y see speech as act? Or criminalization as valuable for normative change effect? -
@schemaly@ma_franks@EndRevengePorn@CathyReisenwitz I think criminalizing the immediate discloser does not address the core harm + -
@schemaly@ma_franks@EndRevengePorn@CathyReisenwitz criminalizing secondary disclosure is too overbroad. + -
@schemaly@ma_franks@EndRevengePorn@CathyReisenwitz So I prefer legal remedies towards the harms effected, rather than deterrence, + -
@schemaly@ma_franks@EndRevengePorn@CathyReisenwitz because I don’t think deterrence can be achieved in a manner that is both effective + -
@sarahjeong@schemaly@EndRevengePorn@CathyReisenwitz Just to whom? After disclosure, all remedies are at best damage control. -
@ma_franks@schemaly@EndRevengePorn@CathyReisenwitz I don’t think all third party disclosers are paradigm bad actors, and I don’t think + - 9 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.