3 ms·
It’s not silly at all, because that is literally a law in Canada. There are also 0 restrictions on offensiveness in the US. Any restrictions on speech are rest
by AmericanChopper 8y ago
It’s not silly at all, because that is literally a law in Canada.
There are also 0 restrictions on offensiveness in the US. Any restrictions on speech are restrictions on other crimes. You can’t incite violence for example. If your straw man of what free speech means we’re true, then a gang leader could freely sit behind a desk and direct others to commit crime on his behalf all day because all he’s doing is speaking, right?...
- icebraining 8y agoThere are also 0 restrictions on offensiveness in the US. That's not true: see "seven dirty words".
- AmericanChopper 8y agoThe Supreme Court ruling on that case held that broadcasting content into people’s homes is materially different to public speech.
- icebraining 8y agoSo if the UK courts rule that posting on Twitter/FB is materially different then it's all fine?
- AmericanChopper 8y agoIf twitter stopped operating on the internet, and started terrestrially broadcasting their content into people’s homes then you might have a point.
- dragonwriter 8y ago> It’s not silly at all, because that is literally a law in Canada. Except it's literally not; that was a deliberate misrepresentation popularized by people like Jordan Peterson. [0] > There are also 0 restrictions on offensiveness in the US Incorrect, see literally the entire field of obscenity law. [0] http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-criminalizing-pronoun-misuse/ http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-crimi...