3 ms·

> We both believe that freedom of speech is generally a good thing I doubt it. Cases in point: > I should not be free to > I should not be free to go around

> We both believe that freedom of speech is generally a good thing I doubt it. Cases in point: > I should not be free to > I should not be free to go around telling all your friends Free speech is absolute by definition, otherwise it is not free. If you don't believe in free speech, you don't believe in free speech. Own up, don't try to weasel around with words. Say it: I do not support free speech. This is the main issue, people not speaking their mind. Just speak what you feel. Don't worry, we still have some free speech left. You can voice your disregard for the principles of freedom and liberty.

kibwen 6y ago
> You can voice your disregard for the principles of freedom and liberty. And when the principles of freedom and liberty come into conflict with each other, how will you resolve it? If you must excommunicate me from the church of freedom of speech for the heresy of believing in the existence of more important personal liberties, then I accept my ostracision. In the meantime, /u/DeepFuckingValue was doxxed today. Do you believe that Reuters' right to free speech outweighs his right to privacy?
- perryizgr8 6y ago
  > Do you believe that Reuters' right to free speech outweighs his right to privacy? That is for thr courts to decide. He can sue. But Twitter should not ban Reuters from their platform.
- dvt 6y ago
  > In the meantime, /u/DeepFuckingValue was doxxed today He wasn't "doxxed." Why do people use that word so willy-nilly these days? Reuters did some investigative journalism and found out his identity through public sources. He's not a confidential informant, he wasn't trying to keep his identity a secret, and he was voluntarily interviewed by WSJ anyway. And even if he was doxxed, it's up to the courts to decide of free speech outweighs the right to privacy. This is one of those edge cases that will sometimes be answered in the negative, and sometimes in the positive.

kibwen 6y ago

> You can voice your disregard for the principles of freedom and liberty. And when the principles of freedom and liberty come into conflict with each other, how will you resolve it? If you must excommunicate me from the church of freedom of speech for the heresy of believing in the existence of more important personal liberties, then I accept my ostracision. In the meantime, /u/DeepFuckingValue was doxxed today. Do you believe that Reuters' right to free speech outweighs his right to privacy?

perryizgr8 6y ago
> Do you believe that Reuters' right to free speech outweighs his right to privacy? That is for thr courts to decide. He can sue. But Twitter should not ban Reuters from their platform.
dvt 6y ago
> In the meantime, /u/DeepFuckingValue was doxxed today He wasn't "doxxed." Why do people use that word so willy-nilly these days? Reuters did some investigative journalism and found out his identity through public sources. He's not a confidential informant, he wasn't trying to keep his identity a secret, and he was voluntarily interviewed by WSJ anyway. And even if he was doxxed, it's up to the courts to decide of free speech outweighs the right to privacy. This is one of those edge cases that will sometimes be answered in the negative, and sometimes in the positive.