3 ms·
Point taken. However my argument about the the quality of the content of the speech still holds. Sure, pamphleteers could reach the ends of the earth, but the t
by igammarays 7y ago
Point taken. However my argument about the the quality of the content of the speech still holds. Sure, pamphleteers could reach the ends of the earth, but the they couldn't publish anything they wanted. Child pornography could not spread by pamphlet.
- SamBam 7y agoI don't see why you keep bringing up child pornography. Facebook and Twitter don't allow people to spread it, and no one is suggesting they should. It's entirely a strawman. As for whether "one person" currently has more reach that the pamphleteers did, I also disagree. A pamphlet is only spread if people are agreeing with its content. Likewise a tweet or facebook post. A billion people post inane content every day. We see a microscopic fraction of it. That is an equivalent form of "peer review" as your pamphlet distributors.
- DuskStar 7y agoNeither could info on birth control or abortions (or in fact most things we'd consider part of "sex ed" today), but we generally regard those restrictions as having been a bad idea.