3 ms·
How about we all admit that this is a simplistic position that flies in the face of centuries of case law trying to work out exactly what "free speech" means an
by danaliv 6y ago
How about we all admit that this is a simplistic position that flies in the face of centuries of case law trying to work out exactly what "free speech" means and how it squares with people's other fundamental, inalienable rights, because in real life it's not, in fact, obvious?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- sneak 6y agoThe boundaries of legal speech are pretty well sorted out. Web and email hosting companies don't have an issue figuring it out. Twitter shouldn't either.
- kbelder 6y agoSimple doesn't mean simplistic. I'd like a platform that removes illegal speech, nothing else. Such a platform should be legal.
- vulcan01 6y ago> > centuries of case law trying to work out exactly what "free speech" means and how it squares with people's other fundamental, inalienable rights, because in real life it's not, in fact, obvious? > platform that removes illegal speech What constitutes "illegal speech" vs "legal speech"? Clearly, freedom of speech does not give you the right to illegal speech. This is what centuries of case law and legislation have attempted to resolve - what is illegal vs what is not. EDIT: Heck, all law is like this. I could say "I want murder to be prevented, nothing else" but what if someone kills someone else in self-defence? When is that self-defence? There are no clear answers.