2 ms·
I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that "Freedom Speeches™" is your attempt to refer to a "selective defense of speech while denying same right to other
by amadeuspagel 5y ago
I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that "Freedom Speeches™" is your attempt to refer to a "selective defense of speech while denying same right to others, the responsibilities that come with rights, real world power inbalances"? So your sentence evals to:
> Perhaps if the courts allow individuals harmed by "selective defense of speech while denying same right to others, the responsibilities that come with rights, real world power inbalances", we won't need draconian hate speech laws and such.
Of course that sentence doesn't make sense regardless of what you replace "Freedom Speeches™" with, so it's really moot what "Freedom Speeches™" is supposed to refer to.
- specialist 5y agoOops. Now realize I omitted key words. Its should read something like: > Perhaps if the courts allow individuals harmed by Freedom Speeches™ to sue for damages , we won't need draconian hate speech laws and such. Jill Lepore has me reevaluating my support for laws banning hate speech. While I support the end goal, stopping verbal assaults, I'm very open towards other legal solutions. Like perhaps the courts can broaden the scope of libel and defamation. Again, not excited about that. Overly broad, and we end up with UK style censorship. It's a tough problem. But I'm confident we can find a balance.