3 ms·

i believe at least one the tweets they deleted were calls for people to calm down and leave, that seems like the opposite of incitement. >Where would you draw

i believe at least one the tweets they deleted were calls for people to calm down and leave, that seems like the opposite of incitement. >Where would you draw the line? no line. representatives have chosen not to represent their constituents, at a certain point it needs to be clear that if you can't keep your promises, ignore the needs and concerns of the public while holding them in contempt, this is the only possible outcome. censorship cannot solve this problem, only effective governance can.

frereubu 6y ago
When you say no line, you believe there are no limts to free speech?
- odessacubbage 6y ago
  it wouldn't be free speech if there were. the first amendment was written by a group of seditious traitors who rebelled against the state. speech is not a tool for preserving the state, it exists to protect the people.
  - frereubu 6y ago
    We have a more fundamental disagreement than tweets in that case. If anyone should be allowed to post anything, what about images of child pornography?
    - odessacubbage 6y ago
      do you arrest a bank robber for double parking? there is a fundamental difference in my eyes between prosecuting speech and prosecuting damage. people lie incessantly every single day, not all of those lies are criminally libelous, but when they are, the issue at hand is the resulting material damage. with child pornography this is even more straightforward. the creation of cp is inherently damaging it is also both the evidence and admission of a crime as would be the conspiracy to finance and distribute said material. the problem with prosecuting the speech itself w/ cp is that there is simply too great of a grey area when it comes to material and intent and too little actual demonstrable benefit to society at large. as a rule, i tend to believe 'i know it when i see it' is among the worst possible legal arguments to be given institutional credence.
      - frereubu 6y ago
        With respect, it feels to me like you're sidestepping the issue because it's more satisfying if the law has clean lines. What about incitement to murder? If Trump said something like "I think people should take their assault wepaons to Washington DC and kill Joe Biden." Incitement to murder in this case is speech, but it's criminal speech, ergo speech cannot be entirely free. Effectively what I'm saying is that I don't think it's possible to be as cut-and-dry as you'd like it to be.

frereubu 6y ago

When you say no line, you believe there are no limts to free speech?

odessacubbage 6y ago
it wouldn't be free speech if there were. the first amendment was written by a group of seditious traitors who rebelled against the state. speech is not a tool for preserving the state, it exists to protect the people.
- frereubu 6y ago
  We have a more fundamental disagreement than tweets in that case. If anyone should be allowed to post anything, what about images of child pornography?
  - odessacubbage 6y ago
    do you arrest a bank robber for double parking? there is a fundamental difference in my eyes between prosecuting speech and prosecuting damage. people lie incessantly every single day, not all of those lies are criminally libelous, but when they are, the issue at hand is the resulting material damage. with child pornography this is even more straightforward. the creation of cp is inherently damaging it is also both the evidence and admission of a crime as would be the conspiracy to finance and distribute said material. the problem with prosecuting the speech itself w/ cp is that there is simply too great of a grey area when it comes to material and intent and too little actual demonstrable benefit to society at large. as a rule, i tend to believe 'i know it when i see it' is among the worst possible legal arguments to be given institutional credence.
    - frereubu 6y ago
      With respect, it feels to me like you're sidestepping the issue because it's more satisfying if the law has clean lines. What about incitement to murder? If Trump said something like "I think people should take their assault wepaons to Washington DC and kill Joe Biden." Incitement to murder in this case is speech, but it's criminal speech, ergo speech cannot be entirely free. Effectively what I'm saying is that I don't think it's possible to be as cut-and-dry as you'd like it to be.