- Joined
- Mar 27, 2022
- Messages
- 2,381
- Reaction score
- 2,028
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
All speech is free speech...even speech one person/group or another doesn't like.Shaun King
@shaunking
Ask ANY conservative this question and watch them STRUGGLE to answer it. Since you say free speech and ALL speech needs to be allowed on Twitter, does that mean you believe that should included targeted hate speech against Jews? Should that be allowed? Be specific and clear.
I'm calm. Just pointing out the obvious road..Take a deep breath.
So twitter will be the new 4 chan?These are two different questions. The whole point of free speech is that it doesn’t matter if you agree with it or not. Should a private corporation that has no legal liability for content allow it? Sure.
Once again, free speech only refers to government restrictions on speech. As a private corp, Twitter has no impact on free speech. There are 10 (I think) types of speech that are not protected (hate speech is not one of them). Twitter should make sure none of those types of speech are allowed. If they allow it, the DoJ should use all of their powers to prevent, or punish those responsible for posting it (Twitter and the tweeter).Shaun King
@shaunking
Ask ANY conservative this question and watch them STRUGGLE to answer it. Since you say free speech and ALL speech needs to be allowed on Twitter, does that mean you believe that should included targeted hate speech against Jews? Should that be allowed? Be specific and clear.
Shaun King
@shaunking
Ask ANY conservative this question and watch them STRUGGLE to answer it. Since you say free speech and ALL speech needs to be allowed on Twitter, does that mean you believe that should included targeted hate speech against Jews? Should that be allowed? Be specific and clear.
If they allow it, the DoJ should use all of their powers to prevent, or punish those responsible for posting it (Twitter and the tweeter).
Shaun King
@shaunking
Ask ANY conservative this question and watch them STRUGGLE to answer it. Since you say free speech and ALL speech needs to be allowed on Twitter, does that mean you believe that should included targeted hate speech against Jews? Should that be allowed? Be specific and clear.
The founders didn’t envision a world in which corporations amass so much power that they have a chilling effect on constitutional rights, but that’s the world we live in. I also don’t like the idea of creating a loophole in which the government can do that via a corporation - which is essentially what has happened.Once again, free speech only refers to government restrictions on speech. As a private corp, Twitter has no impact on free speech. There are 10 (I think) types of speech that are not protected (hate speech is not one of them). Twitter should make sure none of those types of speech are allowed. If they allow it, the DoJ should use all of their powers to prevent, or punish those responsible for posting it (Twitter and the tweeter).
I’m pretty sure the government can’t stop speech.
Not in Canada. They have hate speech laws that I personally think America should adopt.Free speech doesn’t mean all speech.
Oh there is enough of them to flood twitter with their insanity. It will devolve into the new 4 chan for racists and bigots.Yes, are right-wing friends are titillated by the prospect if Twitter accepting content about whacky conspiracy theories and hate speech, but the content provider is going yo have t I d I moderating if they don't want their business to go down in the sewer. Maybe they think the success story of Fox News, with its nutty, racist content is a success story model fir Twitter, but Fox News is slick and with professional infotainers. I'm not sure they can bring that slick level of propaganda to Twitter.
They can, but prior restraint has a very high bar before it is allowed.I’m pretty sure the government can’t stop speech.
?The founders didn’t envision a world in which corporations amass so much power that they have a chilling effect on constitutional rights, but that’s the world we live in. I also don’t like the idea of creating a loophole in which the government can do that via a corporation - which is essentially what has happened.
What’s the question?
Your response is unclear, I couldn't figure out your point.What’s the question?
How so?The founders didn’t envision a world in which corporations amass so much power that they have a chilling effect on constitutional rights, but that’s the world we live in. I also don’t like the idea of creating a loophole in which the government can do that via a corporation - which is essentially what has happened.
It was a response to your assertion that free speech only applies to the government. My response was that the bill of rights shouldn’t be interpreted that way in the 21st century with corporations wielding power to silence and the government acting through those corporations.Your response is unclear, I couldn't figure out your point.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?