4 ms·
No, they aren't. That's the point. We're not talking about yelling over someone while they're talking or even using a private publication to present only a set
by coderdude 10y ago
No, they aren't. That's the point. We're not talking about yelling over someone while they're talking or even using a private publication to present only a set of opinions that fits with some agenda. The specific point being made was about using violence, destruction, hate, and fear as a means to silence people.
Calling me names (or other people) doesn't make what you're saying valid. It wasn't an effective tactic for the left during the election and it's not an effective tactic in this conversation.
At any rate, I don't think you're arguing against points that I've actually made. This sounds more like a response to some hypothetical response that you were anticipating before I responded.
- thatcat 10y agoFree speech is not the right to speak freely in any venue for any reason. Your comparison of Berkeley activists tactics to terrorists is weak; like comparing script kiddies to international bank hackers to drum up fear. Is your intent here to justify the existence of this watch list? The first amendment lists a specific purpose for free speech - for the public to redress grievances to the government. Do you not think that this watch list will curtail free speech infinitely more than what you're complaining about? By monitoring protests and reporting legal political action to employees, you can implicit discourage political protest - which IS a legally protected form of free speech.
- griffinmmahon 10y agoThank you for fighting the good fight in explaining this concept.