3 ms·

Thought experiment: Would it be anti-free-speech for the government to ban websites from posting specific and detailed information on how to obtain poisons tha

by csense 4y ago

Thought experiment: Would it be anti-free-speech for the government to ban websites from posting specific and detailed information on how to obtain poisons that can be used to commit murder? If you say "no," you're just as anti-free-speech as these conservatives. You just disagree with them about whether instructions for abortion are instructions for obtaining a medical procedure (protected speech) or instructions to commit murder (unprotected speech). (Presumably because you disagree about the underlying issue, which is whether abortion is a medical procedure that ought to be legal, or a form of murder that ought to be illegal.)

alexvoda 4y ago
No need to opine. The US DoJ already settled that debate. To quote Wikipedia: "In 2015, Defense Distributed founder Cody Wilson sued the United States government on free speech grounds and in 2018 the Department of Justice settled, acknowledging Wilson's right to publish instructions for the production of 3D printed firearms." Therefore, the answer to your question is "yes". So the GQP is full of hypocrites who want to be above the rules and will ruthlessly wield governmental censorship while crying about being censored (private entities not amplifying their voice). As such, they are the party in favor of both censorship and compelled speech.
- corbulo 4y ago
  >GQP Why use such zealous partisan terms? Do you not see how it makes you sound? What is your objective, to persuade or to polarize?
  - alexvoda 4y ago
    In relation to this my objective is to viciously mock, not to persuade nor polarize. I am an outsider with no ability to influence American politics, yet American politics does affect me an ocean away regardless. The legitimization of bullshit, conspiracy and inanity Trump did in his 2 campaigns and 1 mandate has damaged politics as a whole worldwide. It has proven that being completely detached from reality is a viable strategy. As such my usage of the term is fully intentional.

by csense 4y ago

alexvoda 4y ago

No need to opine. The US DoJ already settled that debate. To quote Wikipedia: "In 2015, Defense Distributed founder Cody Wilson sued the United States government on free speech grounds and in 2018 the Department of Justice settled, acknowledging Wilson's right to publish instructions for the production of 3D printed firearms." Therefore, the answer to your question is "yes". So the GQP is full of hypocrites who want to be above the rules and will ruthlessly wield governmental censorship while crying about being censored (private entities not amplifying their voice). As such, they are the party in favor of both censorship and compelled speech.

corbulo 4y ago
>GQP Why use such zealous partisan terms? Do you not see how it makes you sound? What is your objective, to persuade or to polarize?
- alexvoda 4y ago
  In relation to this my objective is to viciously mock, not to persuade nor polarize. I am an outsider with no ability to influence American politics, yet American politics does affect me an ocean away regardless. The legitimization of bullshit, conspiracy and inanity Trump did in his 2 campaigns and 1 mandate has damaged politics as a whole worldwide. It has proven that being completely detached from reality is a viable strategy. As such my usage of the term is fully intentional.