3 ms·
After the fact doesn't matter. If all tyranny requires is an after-the-fact judicial ruling then tyranny will just find a way to win before then. The fact is,
by RyanAdamas 3y ago
After the fact doesn't matter. If all tyranny requires is an after-the-fact judicial ruling then tyranny will just find a way to win before then.
The fact is, there is no such thing as a private company. Infringing speech is happening all over the place; the fact the Constitutions states Congress cannot enact laws against speech is tantamount to the people themselves being unable to enact action against speech and expression. Congress is the people, and the people don't get to privatize tyranny. Period.
- hackyhacky 3y agoThere are plenty of legal restrictions on free speech. Defamation, for example. We don't consider it laws against defamation to be tyranny, but rather legitimate acts of governance. Moreover, the case in question did not involve an act of Congress, or in fact any express act of governance at all. There's a difference between being legally or illegally compelled by the government and simply being contacted by a government official. The government has freedom of speech, too, and they are allowed to express concern about dissemination of materials counter to the public interest.
- nonethewiser 3y agoThere are exceptions to the rule and this wasnt one of then. This wasnt the government suing Twitter for defamation.
- hackyhacky 3y ago> This wasnt the government suing Twitter for defamation. I never said it was. The point was simply to refute GP's blanket assertion that any restriction on speech is tantamount to tyranny. > There are exceptions to the rule and this wasnt one of then. That's a thornier question which has not been resolved yet, and is certainly not a black-and-white issue.