3 ms·
It's the same manipulative argument you see with "protecting the children". Everybody agrees with the goal, so obviously we're doing the right thing by curtaili
by Sakos 4y ago
It's the same manipulative argument you see with "protecting the children". Everybody agrees with the goal, so obviously we're doing the right thing by curtailing everybody's freedoms.
- forgetfreeman 4y agoHow about instead of "curtailing freedoms" we attach some really aggressive consequences for poor choices as regards broadcasting obvious bullshit in public spaces? We good now?
- perryizgr8 4y agoHow about we treat freedom of speech like the inalienable right it is? We better now?
- forgetfreeman 4y agoWe pretending freedom of speech means you can say literally anything you feel like in any venue at any time without repercussions? Care to review any of the laws barring communicating threats, hate speech, slander, libel, etc? If what you're trying to defend is folks shilling obvious falsehood and intentionally misleading rhetoric what's your agenda here?
- perryizgr8 4y ago> you can say literally anything you feel like Yes, by definition. > any of the laws barring communicating threats, hate speech, slander, libel, etc By definition, such laws are incompatible with free speech. > what's your agenda here Free speech
- forgetfreeman 4y agoHaving proposed we legalize calling in bomb threats I feel like you've thoroughly invalidated any argument you may have been trying to advance here.
- Sakos 4y agoI'm absolutely fine with not necessarily being able to say anything and everything. I'm generally supportive of anti-hate speech laws and I'm not a free speech absolutist. However, just because I might agree with their goal doesn't mean I agree with how they choose to achieve it and I'm skeptical of the above approach.
- Idk__Throwaway 4y agoYou support this until you and the arbiter of "obvious bullshit" begin to disagree.
- forgetfreeman 4y agoAs facile arguments go that's a real gem. Claims require proof, problem solved.