3 ms·

Yes, it can be called free speech, although there can be repercussions when that speech falls into slander / libel / defamation. Outside of that, why would you

Yes, it can be called free speech, although there can be repercussions when that speech falls into slander / libel / defamation. Outside of that, why would you ever want the government deciding what you can and cannot say? Right now you may be aligned with the government, but that can change very easily in the future

kumarvvr 6y ago
I was commenting on the hypocrisy of some, who love to bang the free speech drum, but expect the government to protect them from private individuals actions. Be it citizens or corporations. If one wants the govt to ensure free speech, then it is implied it must also ensure a private individuals right to pursue legal actions, such as denial or service or lawsuits.
pii 6y ago
"I don't care whether the government allows someone to lie to me about the contents of my medicine"
anigbrowl 6y ago
Well, suppose there's a group of people saying that another group of people (which happens to include you) should be killed as soon as possible. In an ideal world, they probably wouldn't do that because they'd recognize that collective aggression against others could rebound on them, but in the imperfect world we actually occupy it happens all the time. Of course, you could just figure they'll limit their social opportunities and eventually grow out of it or develop some higher wisdom, but just how long should you have to put up with threats from random strangers and anxieties about your personal safety while you are waiting for your antagonists to become enlightened?
- ByTheBook 6y ago
  >Well, suppose there's a group of people saying that another group of people (which happens to include you) should be killed as soon as possible. But that is not protected free speech under the first amendment.
  - anigbrowl 6y ago
    Some people think it is. In many legal jurisdictions, prosecutors and cops rely on the idea of a 'true threat' which has to be specific and imminent. So a generalized expression of hate like 'all _____ should die' wouldn't count. Here's a relevant example, about a woman in Michigan who eventually resorted to shaming her neighbor int he media because she had no confidence in reporting to police: https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/wayne/2021/02/19/kkk-flag-grosse-pointe-park-michigan/4488964001/ https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/wayne/2021/0... The problem with a very mechanistic/binary approach to legal questions is that it leaves a lot of room for antagonistic or outright threatening behavior that nevertheless remains within the bounds of legality. Experience suggests that's likely better than vague or arbitrary standards, but it's not a simple issue.
- soundnote 6y ago
  That happens. My favourite is that people like me are "born into not being human", which I'm supposed to be ok with.
rbanffy 6y ago
Remember we are not talking about what the government says is acceptable, but what Twitter's terms of service say.

kumarvvr 6y ago

I was commenting on the hypocrisy of some, who love to bang the free speech drum, but expect the government to protect them from private individuals actions. Be it citizens or corporations. If one wants the govt to ensure free speech, then it is implied it must also ensure a private individuals right to pursue legal actions, such as denial or service or lawsuits.

pii 6y ago

"I don't care whether the government allows someone to lie to me about the contents of my medicine"

anigbrowl 6y ago

Well, suppose there's a group of people saying that another group of people (which happens to include you) should be killed as soon as possible. In an ideal world, they probably wouldn't do that because they'd recognize that collective aggression against others could rebound on them, but in the imperfect world we actually occupy it happens all the time. Of course, you could just figure they'll limit their social opportunities and eventually grow out of it or develop some higher wisdom, but just how long should you have to put up with threats from random strangers and anxieties about your personal safety while you are waiting for your antagonists to become enlightened?

ByTheBook 6y ago
>Well, suppose there's a group of people saying that another group of people (which happens to include you) should be killed as soon as possible. But that is not protected free speech under the first amendment.
- anigbrowl 6y ago
  Some people think it is. In many legal jurisdictions, prosecutors and cops rely on the idea of a 'true threat' which has to be specific and imminent. So a generalized expression of hate like 'all _____ should die' wouldn't count. Here's a relevant example, about a woman in Michigan who eventually resorted to shaming her neighbor int he media because she had no confidence in reporting to police: https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/wayne/2021/02/19/kkk-flag-grosse-pointe-park-michigan/4488964001/ https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/wayne/2021/0... The problem with a very mechanistic/binary approach to legal questions is that it leaves a lot of room for antagonistic or outright threatening behavior that nevertheless remains within the bounds of legality. Experience suggests that's likely better than vague or arbitrary standards, but it's not a simple issue.
soundnote 6y ago
That happens. My favourite is that people like me are "born into not being human", which I'm supposed to be ok with.

rbanffy 6y ago

Remember we are not talking about what the government says is acceptable, but what Twitter's terms of service say.