4 ms·
You can legally share every last detail of the poop you just left in the toilet, pictures and all. If you choose to do that at the lunch table at work, nobody
by klyrs 4y ago
You can legally share every last detail of the poop you just left in the toilet, pictures and all. If you choose to do that at the lunch table at work, nobody is obliged to remain seated with you. Ergo, sharing such details is not a good idea. Even though it is perfectly legal.
Those co-workers who vacated the table are exercising their rights in walking away. Call that "mob justice" if you will.
- briantakita 4y agoThere's a difference between walking away & taping someone's mouth at the table. Walking away is freedom of association. Taping someone's mouth is censorship & a forced imposition or outright violence against a person.
- klyrs 4y agoIs there a rash of mouth taping that I'm unaware of?
- kelseyfrog 4y agoParent is trying to draw a parallel between mouth taping and censorship. The problem is that lunchroom scenarios aren't cleanly isomorphic to online scenarios.
- klyrs 4y agoOkay. Let's say you like to share details of your bathroom escapades on a forum dedicated to 3d printing. The admins give you a few warnings and eventually kick you off, because nobody wants to hear that. I daresay that isn't "violence." It's still an exercise of free association where the forum moderators have decided your speech is "not good" despite being perfectly legal.
- kelseyfrog 4y agoThe argument, as I understand it, is that disabling someone's ability to do speech is categorically censorship.
- klyrs 4y agoSure, call it censorship. I maintain that it's legally permissible to ban shit-posters for misconduct. I'd further argue that failing to ban shit-posters will dissuade 3d printing enthusiasts from using a particular forum, granting the shit-posters a heckler's veto which is its own form of censorship.
- gadders 4y agoHow about murdering? See Charlie Hebdo, Samuel Paty etc.
- trabant00 4y agoNobody is arguing people are obligated to sit and listen to the legal speech. Not even close.
- klyrs 4y agoMy comment illustrates Ken White's statement that prompted your question: > What does "good" and "bad" have to do with this? Happy to hear that you agree that there is a gulf between individuals' judgement and legal judgement. If you'll read more of Ken White, he also says that sometimes it's bad to exercise "cancel culture" even though it's legal to do so.