3 ms·

> I hope we all agree that laws against libel, glorification of crime, threatening people are not exactly censorship. As far as I'm concerned, if you want to f

• icoder 5y ago
  I which counter?
• UncleMeat 5y ago
  That sounds like the opposite of free speech absolutism. This is the government silencing speech!
  • GeekyBear 5y ago
    >This is the government silencing speech! Which they can do, once you get over a very high bar indeed. We have literally seen the Supreme Court protect speech advocating for violence against the Government. >Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court interpreting the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action". Specifically, the Court struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio I much prefer the rule of law to the rule of Twitter mob.
    • UncleMeat 5y ago
      But what about free speech absolutism! “Yeah of course the government can silence people” doesn’t sound like absolutism to me.
• clucas 5y ago
  Wait, just for clarification... do you believe a company should be allowed to censor speech on its own platform if it wants to do so? Or are you saying a business should not be allowed to remove any posts unless a court has given its approval?