Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

quahaug1945 t1_iytbo7m wrote

Reply to comment by Keelija9000 in Actor James Woods sues Rhode Island town over his neighbor building a house next door by kittyluxe

He's correct.

−78

FourAM t1_iyte8gm wrote

Found the guy who always skipped social studies

39

Keelija9000 t1_iytfbc1 wrote

I personally don’t see it. Being banned from Twitter has nothing to do with protecting free speech. There are other platforms to express your free speech.

17

quahaug1945 t1_iytgnfq wrote

Twitter conspired with the DNC and the Biden Campaign to both silence opposing voices and spike a legitimate story about Hunter Biden's crimes. EVERY platform needs to honor and protect FREE POLITICAL SPEECH.

−54

Dargobt t1_iytu0gv wrote

Dude, they were asking to take down revenge porn…the horror 🙄

Go peddle your lies somehwhere else

20

Originalfrozenbanana t1_iyugm2a wrote

Twitter conspired to follow its long standing policies against posting revenge porn and hacked content you numbskull

11

LoganImYourFather t1_iyv1all wrote

To stop revenge porn. Which now is prevalent posts by Senator's and Congress people under investigation, like Ted Cruz.

6

jdylopa2 t1_iyut1nb wrote

Are you in favor of nationalizing the social media industry?

2

PillowCaseCurtains t1_iyx56d0 wrote

You are arguing in favor of revenge porn…

Just step back and think about that for a second. I am sorry your mental illness is so deep.

1

Comet_Empire t1_iytgtjz wrote

That's fucking hilarious. Your hilarious. Well done. Just phenomenal. Best joke all day.

10

[deleted] t1_iytlf2k wrote

[deleted]

−13

sophware t1_iytvdnn wrote

It can.

At least recognize the best examples of what you disagree with. Don't use straw men. Address how harassment results in suppression of the most silenced voices. Look at how shouting people down has traditionally been used (and is currently being used) by many groups to silence vulnerable people. Address what has happened to the most obvious "free speech" platforms. Don't respond with weak whataboutism that casts those with power and advantage as the victims.

If one wants to be simplistic about free speech (and some Musk-leaning arguments are), it is just as logical to look at the platform before and after him and conclude he hates free speech. His love or hate of free speech is very possibly not the driving factor in what he's doing; but faulty, ill-intentioned arguments (matching those that say he loves free speech) could conclude he's anti-freedom by looking at the voices that have been greatly diminished as an openly predictable result of his actions.

Free speech is complex. Simplistic, absolutist approaches by nature do not cut it.

The closest a simplistic, absolutist statement can come to cutting it might be "Never has an competent person argued that all speech (like intentionally, falsely yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater) is conceptually protected by the spirit of free speech or should be legally protected by free speech laws."

Even if giving Musk the benefit of doubt he clearly does not qualify for, one would at least acknowledge good people can think he's closer to allowing 'Fire!' than he should be. The argument plainly has grounds. Maybe one wouldn't agree, but one would be correct to acknowledge it.

This is more "fail to see" than it is "cannot be made."

6

[deleted] t1_iytwmd9 wrote

[deleted]

−7

sophware t1_iyty5ot wrote

>My problem was with your comment directly stating you would like to heckle someone’s loved ones at their funeral.

Would you quote where I did that and do so genuinely? Something along the lines of "it's good to heckle loved ones at a funeral and even I would do it and be right to do it"?

5

[deleted] t1_iyu070n wrote

[deleted]

−7

sophware t1_iyu17t6 wrote

This was a (more) reasonable response that I disagree with.

It's my bad that I can't get past the questions you didn't answer and glossed over. When I can be at my best and focus on the more important stuff, I will.

4

mikejr44 t1_iyun09c wrote

phone on the dresser and go get some fire rump, both of you.

−1

LoganImYourFather t1_iyv1g6s wrote

Hate speech is not protected speech. Twitter has seen a rise in Hate speech, false information, scam/phishing posts, and revenge points posts.

2

LoganImYourFather t1_iyv15y1 wrote

The answer we were looking for was hate speech. Twitter has seen a 60-200% rise in various types of hate speech.

5

pennynotrcutt t1_iyv5pjm wrote

Free speech is not the same thing as consequence free speech. You have a right to say it but no one is required by law to give you the platform to say it.

3

MargaretDumont t1_iyvgpaz wrote

People don't seem to understand this, and also that we are all allowed to tell you how much we don't like you and your shitty views.

2