4 ms·
In my opinion aphextron was being overly reductionist in describing the manifesto as just a string of characters. The manifesto was a presentation of a politic
by oska 8y ago
In my opinion aphextron was being overly reductionist in describing the manifesto as just a string of characters.
The manifesto was a presentation of a political viewpoint (and perhaps a call to action - I don't know, I haven't read it). The manifesto qualifies as speech.
The video was a record of a criminal act of great violence. I wouldn't classify the video as speech. (In contrast, a fictional portrayal of the same acts but made with actors and no-one dying would be speech).
- telesilla 8y agoNew Zealand, and many other parts of the world, do not share the U.S.'s "free speech" concept. Speech is not protected and yet the country is high on the freedom of press index. https://freespeechfreepress.wordpress.com/new-zealand/ https://freespeechfreepress.wordpress.com/new-zealand/
- oska 8y agoI'm not from the USA and I didn't make any reference to the US in my comment. I've already dealt with this false argument elsewhere in the thread. [1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19473330 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19473330
- aphextron 8y ago>Speech is not protected and yet the country is high on the freedom of press index. For now. The lessons learned and recorded through 2000 years of Western history, starting with the Greeks and culminating in the American revolution, was that such things can never be relied upon unless guaranteed by law.