3 ms·

> Also your comment doesn't really point out specific flaws in their argument. All you do is tack insulting words onto it without any meaningful substance. Odd

> Also your comment doesn't really point out specific flaws in their argument. All you do is tack insulting words onto it without any meaningful substance. Oddly your comment does the same.

stlark 6y ago
Disagree actually. The fire analogy was fine. I would love to see a reply to that.
- weyland108 6y ago
  He is making a false analogy. The Fire argument is tested in court and essentially regulated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater#:~:text=The%20original%20wording%20used%20in,is%20dangerous%20but%20also%20true https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the.... The disturbing part about these bans is they seem to be done unilaterally if not coordinated by private for profit tech companies. Drifting from the original comment here but: Consider this twitter and facebook unilaterally decided to ban the president of the united states... what message does that send to the other world leaders?. Last I checked nobody elected Zuckerberg and Dorsey.
  - warent 6y ago
    Am I missing something? The article you linked cites: Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969 ... banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot). It seems to directly apply
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Consider this twitter and facebook unilaterally decided to ban the president of the united states... Note that “ban” here is “from using their respective platforms”. > what message does that send to the other world leaders? That private parties operating in the US with the freedom provided by its Constitution may choose not to amplify their speech despite their position of authority? > Last I checked nobody elected Zuckerberg and Dorsey. Last I checked, the freedom of speech and the press meant you didn't need to be elected to a position of government authority to have the right to decide what messages you were willing to use your resources to amplify.

> Also your comment doesn't really point out specific flaws in their argument. All you do is tack insulting words onto it without any meaningful substance. Oddly your comment does the same.

stlark 6y ago

Disagree actually. The fire analogy was fine. I would love to see a reply to that.

weyland108 6y ago
He is making a false analogy. The Fire argument is tested in court and essentially regulated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater#:~:text=The%20original%20wording%20used%20in,is%20dangerous%20but%20also%20true https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the.... The disturbing part about these bans is they seem to be done unilaterally if not coordinated by private for profit tech companies. Drifting from the original comment here but: Consider this twitter and facebook unilaterally decided to ban the president of the united states... what message does that send to the other world leaders?. Last I checked nobody elected Zuckerberg and Dorsey.
- warent 6y ago
  Am I missing something? The article you linked cites: Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969 ... banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot). It seems to directly apply
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Consider this twitter and facebook unilaterally decided to ban the president of the united states... Note that “ban” here is “from using their respective platforms”. > what message does that send to the other world leaders? That private parties operating in the US with the freedom provided by its Constitution may choose not to amplify their speech despite their position of authority? > Last I checked nobody elected Zuckerberg and Dorsey. Last I checked, the freedom of speech and the press meant you didn't need to be elected to a position of government authority to have the right to decide what messages you were willing to use your resources to amplify.