3 ms·
It’s a legal decision. The case they decided on was not, “should free speech absolutism be protected by law?” The case was about what sort of speech is a type o
by 2devnull 4y ago
It’s a legal decision. The case they decided on was not, “should free speech absolutism be protected by law?” The case was about what sort of speech is a type of criminal conduct. A scammer is breaking the law if he lies to you in committing a fraud. That does not mean he doesn’t have free speech. This isn’t difficult to understand for most people who aren’t being contentious in bad faith.
- fsckboy 4y ago> The case was about what sort of speech is a type of criminal conduct. the case was decided by the state on basis of "what sort of speech threatens the laws created by the state" I'm pointing out the difference because science requires questioning, and free speech allows it, but the state and the mob may prefer you to not question state mandates on, oh let's say for example, covid's origins or the hastily prepared novel vaccines or whimsical ever changing masking policies and any measures of their effectiveness