4 ms·
In the same way that shouting down a speaker, preventing anyone from hearing it, is exercising free speech. That is to say: Debatable.
by knorker 5y ago
In the same way that shouting down a speaker, preventing anyone from hearing it, is exercising free speech.
That is to say: Debatable.
- hotpotamus 5y agoIt seems like an inescapable paradox of free speech, no?
- knorker 5y agoI don't think this is unsolvable/inescapable, and I think we need to solve this. In my opinion DoS isn't speech. DoS prevents not just a the speaker from talking, but denies all the listeners hearing it. Just like fraud isn't "free speech". It's not a paradox of free speech that I can't reneg on a verbal contract, or written contract. Free Speech is about the free exchange of ideas. DoS is literally the opposite of that. The right of your fist ends where my face begins. It's possible to argue that it's speech to express your displeasure with a person or their position by interrupting them. And demonstrating or doing a stunt during speech, is fair. But if it goes so far that your intention is no longer to communicate your displeasure, but to deny speech, then it's like claiming "freedom of movement" to move your fist into someone's face. The line isn't clear, and I literally mean it's debatable.