3 ms·

Not really. Those who hate free speech want to control your speech. There have been more than enough times the same folks who hate a subset of speech have compl

Not really. Those who hate free speech want to control your speech. There have been more than enough times the same folks who hate a subset of speech have complained about the same speech in private signal channels.

nr2x 5y ago
Free to impart and to receive. The government can’t choose what I hear, but I have a right to listen to what I want.
- xupybd 5y ago
  Yeah you should have the ability to block who ever you want.
gruez 5y ago
Indeed. There was a poll done earlier this year[1] that reported 27% of all voters (48% of democrats, 14% of republicans, and 18% of independents) support fines or imprisonment for "individuals who publicly question the efficacy of the existing COVID-19 vaccines on social media, television, radio, or in online or digital publications". https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/partner_surveys/jan_2022/covid_19_democratic_voters_support_harsh_measures_against_unvaccinated https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/par...
- adfgadfgaery 5y ago
  Take anything Rasmussen says with a grain of salt. They are not out-and-out fraudulent, but they are generally the least accurate of all major pollsters. Also, there's this: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/531830-rasmussen-quotes-stalin-in-discussing-us-election https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/531830-rasmussen... They weren't great in years past, but endorsing a coup d'état is pretty bad in my eyes. I didn't know this previously; I'll have to adjust my opinion of them.
  - gruez 5y ago
    > Take anything Rasmussen says with a grain of salt. They are not out-and-out fraudulent, but they are generally the least accurate of all major pollsters. >Also, there's this: >https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/531830-rasmussen https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/531830-rasmussen... >They weren't great in years past, but endorsing a coup d'état is pretty bad in my eyes. I didn't know this previously; I'll have to adjust my opinion of them. How did you get the impression that they were "endorsing a coup d'état"? As your article said, they outlined a scenario where that could happen, but I couldn't find anything that's an endorsement of it. If anything, the fact that they quoted stalin by name makes me think they're against it.
    - adfgadfgaery 5y ago
      First off, because everything they said about the law is bullshit. The vice president has no authority to throw out votes. This is a complete fabrication. Either the writer legitimately believe this is legal, in which case they are clueless, or they know it is illegal, in which case they are lying. Either is bad. Second, because of this: >If they are (as more than 70% of Republicans believe) certificates from non-electors appointed via voter fraud, why should he open & count them?" "Many people are saying": the classic weasel words. They can endorse this with an appeal to the authority of common knowledge and discuss it as if it's a reasonable hypothetical, all the while maintaining plausible deniability that they're just repeating what "everyone knows". Well, I don't find it plausible. Read the replies to the tweets. The fascist types definitely interpreted it as Rasmussen agreeing with their position,. The non-fascist types interpreted it the same way. People do not communicate with formal logic. The meaning of speech is the meaning people take from it, not the meaning you would get from dissecting it on a whiteboard.

nr2x 5y ago

Free to impart and to receive. The government can’t choose what I hear, but I have a right to listen to what I want.

xupybd 5y ago
Yeah you should have the ability to block who ever you want.

gruez 5y ago

Indeed. There was a poll done earlier this year[1] that reported 27% of all voters (48% of democrats, 14% of republicans, and 18% of independents) support fines or imprisonment for "individuals who publicly question the efficacy of the existing COVID-19 vaccines on social media, television, radio, or in online or digital publications". https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/partner_surveys/jan_2022/covid_19_democratic_voters_support_harsh_measures_against_unvaccinated https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/par...

adfgadfgaery 5y ago
Take anything Rasmussen says with a grain of salt. They are not out-and-out fraudulent, but they are generally the least accurate of all major pollsters. Also, there's this: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/531830-rasmussen-quotes-stalin-in-discussing-us-election https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/531830-rasmussen... They weren't great in years past, but endorsing a coup d'état is pretty bad in my eyes. I didn't know this previously; I'll have to adjust my opinion of them.
- gruez 5y ago
  > Take anything Rasmussen says with a grain of salt. They are not out-and-out fraudulent, but they are generally the least accurate of all major pollsters. >Also, there's this: >https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/531830-rasmussen https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/531830-rasmussen... >They weren't great in years past, but endorsing a coup d'état is pretty bad in my eyes. I didn't know this previously; I'll have to adjust my opinion of them. How did you get the impression that they were "endorsing a coup d'état"? As your article said, they outlined a scenario where that could happen, but I couldn't find anything that's an endorsement of it. If anything, the fact that they quoted stalin by name makes me think they're against it.
  - adfgadfgaery 5y ago
    First off, because everything they said about the law is bullshit. The vice president has no authority to throw out votes. This is a complete fabrication. Either the writer legitimately believe this is legal, in which case they are clueless, or they know it is illegal, in which case they are lying. Either is bad. Second, because of this: >If they are (as more than 70% of Republicans believe) certificates from non-electors appointed via voter fraud, why should he open & count them?" "Many people are saying": the classic weasel words. They can endorse this with an appeal to the authority of common knowledge and discuss it as if it's a reasonable hypothetical, all the while maintaining plausible deniability that they're just repeating what "everyone knows". Well, I don't find it plausible. Read the replies to the tweets. The fascist types definitely interpreted it as Rasmussen agreeing with their position,. The non-fascist types interpreted it the same way. People do not communicate with formal logic. The meaning of speech is the meaning people take from it, not the meaning you would get from dissecting it on a whiteboard.