2 ms·
"It's not literally criminal" is a very poor defense. So is pretending that anybody who thinks A did something crappy is out to deny A basic freedoms to do anyt
by smsm42 4y ago
"It's not literally criminal" is a very poor defense. So is pretending that anybody who thinks A did something crappy is out to deny A basic freedoms to do anything. If you can't go to a concert because MegaCorp X got into a legal fight with MegaCorp Y, it's a crappy situation, and it deserves to be called as such without implying that this means you denying MegaCorp X rights to have legal fights or their right of association. You can both have rights and not use them in crappy ways.
Not sure what this has to do with the second amendment... Seems to be a complete non-sequitur.
- kelseyfrog 4y agoI use the second amendment as an example of an enshrined right that doesn't change when new tech develops. It's an analogy. Freedom of association doesn't change when we develop new tech either. > You can both have rights and not use them in crappy ways. And using rights in crappy ways doesn't mean we revoke them. See all the speech I disagree with and yet still support the freedom of speech. Again, I'm using an analogy here.
- ceejayoz 4y ago> I use the second amendment as an example of an enshrined right that doesn't change when new tech develops. But neither the First nor the Second apply to private property/services. Never have. The Second Amendment infers rights in certain situations, just as the First does. Twitter gets to say "no transphobia" if they want for the same reasons they can say "no guns allowed in our HQ". The newness of the technology is irrelevant; their right to determine what happens on their property goes back to the founding of the country and further.