4 ms·

There is no middle ground when it comes to freedom of speech. I find it interesting to read Khamenei's statements, even though I find his regime repugnant for

There is no middle ground when it comes to freedom of speech. I find it interesting to read Khamenei's statements, even though I find his regime repugnant for killing gays, jailing dissidents, stifling women's rights, and threatening Israel. It's important that we be able to see what he says. It doesn't mean we're glorifying him or legitimizing him, and those elements in the West or elsewhere who may agree with him will get it from alternative sources anyway. Likewise, it's important to see what violent elements in our society are saying, even if we disagree with them and find them reprehensible. You can't stop ideas from flowing; you can slow them down temporarily, by banning them from the mainstream marketplace of idea exchange. But ideas still have a way of leaking through. If someone is advocating assassination of the President on social media, they should be reported to the FBI. Simply deleting their posting accomplishes nothing. These media platforms mistakenly think that they are arbiters of ideas and information, when in reality they're just glorified bulletin boards. It should not be up to them to decide on others' behalf what is appropriate to be seen and what is not. Just my opinions.

everdrive 6y ago
> Simply deleting their posting accomplishes nothing. If it does "nothing," then why is it bad if it happens?
tenebrisalietum 6y ago
> If someone is advocating assassination of the President on social media, they should be reported to the FBI. Simply deleting their posting accomplishes nothing. Let's do both?
dragonwriter 6y ago
> If someone is advocating assassination of the President on social media, they should be reported to the FBI. Simply deleting their posting accomplishes nothing. Limiting the reach of incitement to violent crime is not “nothing”. Obviously, it should also be reported to appropriate authorities.
mnd999 6y ago
I think you (and many others) are confusing a right to freedom of speech with a right to publication. Publishers and editors have been deciding on people's behalf what should and should not be published for hundreds of years. You might write a letter to the New York Times, and they might publish it or they might not. They might decide based on their political leanings.
- blisterpeanuts 6y ago
  So, you're saying that Twitter, Facebook, YouTube etc. are publishers?
  - happytoexplain 6y ago
    You haven't made yourself clear, but assuming you're referring to the legal concept of a publisher, then obviously no, the parent was using the word literally, not legally.

everdrive 6y ago

> Simply deleting their posting accomplishes nothing. If it does "nothing," then why is it bad if it happens?

tenebrisalietum 6y ago

> If someone is advocating assassination of the President on social media, they should be reported to the FBI. Simply deleting their posting accomplishes nothing. Let's do both?

dragonwriter 6y ago

> If someone is advocating assassination of the President on social media, they should be reported to the FBI. Simply deleting their posting accomplishes nothing. Limiting the reach of incitement to violent crime is not “nothing”. Obviously, it should also be reported to appropriate authorities.

mnd999 6y ago

I think you (and many others) are confusing a right to freedom of speech with a right to publication. Publishers and editors have been deciding on people's behalf what should and should not be published for hundreds of years. You might write a letter to the New York Times, and they might publish it or they might not. They might decide based on their political leanings.

blisterpeanuts 6y ago
So, you're saying that Twitter, Facebook, YouTube etc. are publishers?
- happytoexplain 6y ago
  You haven't made yourself clear, but assuming you're referring to the legal concept of a publisher, then obviously no, the parent was using the word literally, not legally.