3 ms·
> It doesn't need to guarantee your right to be annoying at a particular venue. When good principles like free speech are distorted into unreasonable and bizarr
by psychlops 3y ago
> It doesn't need to guarantee your right to be annoying at a particular venue. When good principles like free speech are distorted into unreasonable and bizarre policies it undermines the principles themselves.
Some might say that banning speech that is "annoying at a particular venue" is a unreasonable and bizarre policy.
- h2odragon 3y agoMouth off in court and see how the judge explains it to you. Honestly, there's probably court transcripts of judges explaining in clear, reasonable terms exactly why they're silencing somebody. That's the job they supposed to do, after all.
- plagiarist 3y agoNow all you need to do to bring the argument home is to show us why Twitter is the same as a courtroom in session.
- h2odragon 3y agoinsofar as official business is being conducted there, the analogy would hold. there's absolutely no reason that official business should be conducted on twitter; but good luck (a) getting officials to admit error and (b) getting government IT to stand up a comment board and keep it alive under fierce debate.
- ender341341 3y agoIf you're disruptive enough in court it's one of the few reasons you can be tried in absentia in the US.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y agoThe lack of civil discourse grinds my gears. I've seen people phoning into town hall meetings only to launch racial slurs and profanity at a rapid rate and then people cry about freedom of speech. Or when a reporter asks a question and they're told to shut up. People often advocate for freedom of speech yet ignore the ethical responsibility of civil discourse.