4 ms·

I don't get the argument here. Is the Twitter mobs not entitled to their free speech? To me this seems like she just doesn't like that a majority of people's op

• adventured 6y ago
  If it's intimidation, threats, etc. then it isn't free speech, it's violence. That's why maliciously yelling fire in a crowded theater isn't covered by freedom of speech, the action is intending to violently harm other people. That's also why placing a bullhorn next to someone's ear and blasting a screed through it in a way that destroys someone's hearing isn't a behavior protected by freedom of speech (it would be considered assault, it's an act of violence; the person could easily express their screed without harming someone in that manner). The mobs on Twitter frequently cross over into committing mass acts of criminal behavior through threats and intimidation, organizing to harm people. They don't hide it, this criminal behavior is all out in the open. Hurt this person next, no no no hurt this person. Threatening to harm people is violence (it doesn't have to be a physical threat to be violence), not freedom of speech.
  • Miner49er 6y ago
    I see what you're saying, but that sort of comes down to opinion. If you ask these Twitter mobs, I'm sure they'd say that are only responding in kind. They'd say that the people they're attacking are already attacking them or attacking others.
• spopejoy 6y ago
  She's a rich VC so by definition her viewpoint is more important than the twitter mobs, yes.