2 ms·
This is the equivalent of the teacher's pet pointing out a spelling mistake, without addressing the actual argument. Her central thesis is not that the first a
by Thorentis 6y ago
This is the equivalent of the teacher's pet pointing out a spelling mistake, without addressing the actual argument.
Her central thesis is not that the first amendment should prevent the issues she is addressing from happening. The debate around what the first amendment does and does not protect is usually a diversion people use to avoid discussing the power that private companies have over our ability to express ourselves, and over which information is widely distributed and which is not.
- blacksqr 6y agoThe article writer is a lawyer. She should know the meaning of the First Amendment and her readers ought to be able to expect her to know. Her misstatement is evidence that she is arguing in bad faith. It's not only the people on the other side of her argument who use the debate around what the first amendment does and does not protect as a diversion.