4 ms·
People can communicate by typing in yourprotestwebsite.com and interacting there. Having the right to assemble doesn't mean the government has to make it easy f
by Invictus0 7y ago
People can communicate by typing in yourprotestwebsite.com and interacting there. Having the right to assemble doesn't mean the government has to make it easy for you: and not to mention, having the internet at your disposal makes organizing a protest infinitely easier than at the time of the nation's founding.
- virtuous_signal 7y ago>Having the right to assemble doesn't mean the government has to make it easy for you There's a good active/passive distinction to be made here. For facebook groups, say, I would consider shutting down a group to be an "active" measure - since if facebook were to do nothing, the group would continue existing. But I do see how one could view facebook's allowing the group to remain to be an active "support" of the group.
- mistermann 7y agoWhether the government has to do something vs should do something seems similar to the question of whether Western democracies are truly democratic, or theatric.
- Invictus0 7y agoYou think the government should demand private companies facilitate public protests?
- mistermann 7y agoThat is an impressively vague but rhetorically far more persuasive way to ask the actual, more specific question: whether the major social media companies should possibly be compelled to facilitate widespread free speech, especially if that is the democratic will of the people. I would say yes, but before we do anything, I would like a very serious and in-depth public conversation to take place, followed by some non-deceptive public polling. Would you be opposed to such a process?