3 ms·
I agree with everything you said. Can you comment on my question though?
by CathedralBorrow 6y ago
I agree with everything you said. Can you comment on my question though?
- throwaway894345 6y agoI did. I said it technically depends on intent; however, in practice it's implausible that you weren't issuing a threat, and threats don't constitute free speech.
- CathedralBorrow 6y agoOk I'm confused so can you please help me? My example was absolutely a "threat" in the sense that yes, I in that example would be serious about voicing my opinion and my intention to not voluntarily do business with that imaginary corporation while they employed that person. I would be "threatening" to do something which is entirely my freedom to do; to vote with my wallet. But if I understand you correctly, this would be going outside my freedom of speech. Which implies that I do not have the choice to not do business with them. As in, I am obligated to purchase goods and services from them. I am clearly misunderstanding this because that can't be right. Where did I go off track?
- throwaway894345 6y agoOf course you have the choice of whether or not to do business with them. Nevertheless, threats are not free speech.
- CathedralBorrow 6y agoI'm still confused. I am completely free to choose whether or not to do business with them, but I am not allowed to tell them about my choice? Or am I not allowed to speak about it at all, regardless of who listens?
- throwaway894345 6y agoIssuing threats is not free speech. You're still free to choose with whom you do business. Terribly sorry, but I don't know how to make it simpler than that. Good luck in your pursuits.
- jaccarmac 6y agoAh yes, and of course whether or not something is a threat depends on intent. And who could be a better judge of intent than ... throwaway894345. Who I'm sure has an incredibly nuanced way of determining intent that doesn't boil down to "SJWs have bad intent".