5 ms·
I disagree, I think it is. I don't see what right of anyone is infringed by my exercise of speech. And even if there was, why would that right be absolute, and
by zohch 5y ago
I disagree, I think it is. I don't see what right of anyone is infringed by my exercise of speech.
And even if there was, why would that right be absolute, and not also be balanced by my right to speech?
I'm sorry but my rights don't come from the pontifications of some privileged rich white woman in one of the most privileged nations in the world.
She has no perspective, she can go live in real adversity for some time, know what oppression really feels like, know what it feels like to be denied basic human rights, and then come back and tell us again that what really needs to happen to make the world a better place is that we should accept that the billionaire class dictates our rights to us.
- CarelessExpert 5y ago> I disagree, I think it is. I don't see what right of anyone is infringed by my exercise of speech. Go threaten to murder someone in front of a police offer and then see if your theory holds.
- zohch 5y agoThis is a link to the full speech: https://youtu.be/O613tUE2X3o?t=630 https://youtu.be/O613tUE2X3o?t=630 The video is her speaking about what limitations on political speech is appropriate for Facebook to impose. Facebook is not a government, Facebook is not in a position to make things like violent threats or incitement legal, even if they wanted to. This is about what legal speech should be allowed on Facebook.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- CarelessExpert 5y agoThank you! I watched the video. Frankly, I disagree with your interpretation of her statements. Free speech is a right that must be balanced against other rights. That's all she says. If you disagree with that, you believe in a type of free speech absolutism that has never existed in the real world.