5 ms·
> Being allowed to impersonate others simply doesn't seem to be an important part of that. You forgot the "allowed to impersonate others to do parodies" part o
by piva00 4y ago
> Being allowed to impersonate others simply doesn't seem to be an important part of that.
You forgot the "allowed to impersonate others to do parodies" part of it. I don't understand how you can be staunchly in favour of freedom of speech while holding the position that this kind of speech, blatant parody humour using impersonation as a delivery tool, is not protected under freedom of speech.
If I somehow managed to register the domain "gooogle.com" and use it for humour, to take jabs at Google by displaying loads of fake ads instead of search results, showing on purpose unrelated results to the search query, etc., should my website be banned?
Impersonation for scams and straight up deception are already punishable under other laws, why is that impersonation for parody and humour should be punished? I thought that was... Speech.
- garbagetime 4y agoYou speak of "blatant parody humour using impersonantion". That seems a confused phrase. If an account is blatantly a parody, then it is not committing impersonation, because if someone knows that an account is a parody of a person, they also know it is not the person itself. If you want to make a blatant parody account, you may do so according to the current Twitter TOS. However, if you want to impersonate someone, you may not do that. Your gooogle.com example doesn't seem to connect to the situation at hand, which is about whether it is against the principles of freedom of speech to place limits on impersonation even in such cases where no fraud is being committed. My goal is that people should be allowed to express all views and criticise all people. If for whatever reason impersonation must be outlawed, so be it - it may in fact further the goals for which I support freedom of speech.