4 ms·

Serious consequences wrt the state. Not other citizens. And those can use the legal system to sue you. For "speech" in terms of facts, the state will help a cit

by leobg 3y ago

Serious consequences wrt the state. Not other citizens. And those can use the legal system to sue you. For "speech" in terms of facts, the state will help a citizen get a retraction and/or damages if the facts were objectively wrong. For opinions, only if they were so crude that they attacked the human rather than the position.

CaptainZapp 3y ago
> For "speech" in terms of facts, the state will help a citizen get a retraction and/or damages if the facts were objectively wrong So, what's "objectively wrong" about Media Matters reporting? They documented ads from blue chip companies displayed on the side of evil antisemite contents and outright nazi pages. It's a fact that Musk "you speak the truth" bro'd to a viciously antisemite post. I, for one, are no more willing to give Mr. Musk the benefit of the doubt. When it walks like an antisemite, talks like an antisemite and quaks like an antisemite, then, no shit! we're dealing with an antisemite.
- leobg 3y ago
  The benefit of the doubt is another thing that is in your constitution. Jewish people have been driven from their homelands, have had their livelihoods shattered, and have been burned, shot, and starved to death. Anybody who uses the term antisemitism lightly should take a minute or two to think about whether he is showing respect or disrespect to those people and families who are no longer with us.
eviks 3y ago
Yes, other citizens - the legal system is the system of the state, so if you're free from consequences wrt the state, you're by definition free from court-imposed consequences wrt other citizens. (defamation threshold is also not so low as to include any ad hominem)
- leobg 3y ago
  So Elizabeth Holmes should have gone free? More so, if you were the victim of fraud, you should not be able to get your money back in court, because a lie is speech, and speech must always be free from state intervention?

by leobg 3y ago

CaptainZapp 3y ago

> For "speech" in terms of facts, the state will help a citizen get a retraction and/or damages if the facts were objectively wrong So, what's "objectively wrong" about Media Matters reporting? They documented ads from blue chip companies displayed on the side of evil antisemite contents and outright nazi pages. It's a fact that Musk "you speak the truth" bro'd to a viciously antisemite post. I, for one, are no more willing to give Mr. Musk the benefit of the doubt. When it walks like an antisemite, talks like an antisemite and quaks like an antisemite, then, no shit! we're dealing with an antisemite.

leobg 3y ago
The benefit of the doubt is another thing that is in your constitution. Jewish people have been driven from their homelands, have had their livelihoods shattered, and have been burned, shot, and starved to death. Anybody who uses the term antisemitism lightly should take a minute or two to think about whether he is showing respect or disrespect to those people and families who are no longer with us.

eviks 3y ago

Yes, other citizens - the legal system is the system of the state, so if you're free from consequences wrt the state, you're by definition free from court-imposed consequences wrt other citizens. (defamation threshold is also not so low as to include any ad hominem)

leobg 3y ago
So Elizabeth Holmes should have gone free? More so, if you were the victim of fraud, you should not be able to get your money back in court, because a lie is speech, and speech must always be free from state intervention?