It’s pretty simple, really.
“I hate Bob” is fine.
“Bob should die” isn’t.
Some tweets don’t need to exist because it might lead Bob to be killed, especially when said by someone with a cult-like following.
“I hate Bob” is fine.
“Bob should die” isn’t.
Some tweets don’t need to exist because it might lead Bob to be killed, especially when said by someone with a cult-like following.
"Bob, I am coming to kill you" or "Bob I'll kill you if you don't do X for me" a court would say is probably a credible threat, which is already illegal.
Why do we want to shift the responsibility of deciding how to police speech to private companies?
Sticks & stones.
However some jokes already are illegal or at the very least will get you in trouble, for example there’s one word you can’t joke about in airports.
Another point would be who decides what is or isn't a joke or hateful?
Do you want the companies to decide what the correct speech is, would you like a government panel to police speech?
Currently, I like illegal speech being the only rule because it gets murky otherwise.
So we agree. Trump’s tweets were pretty credible, don’t you think?
This whole mess this week happened because of one person who incited violence.
This whole mess happened because of the instigating of the media and the riots all year.
This event did not appear out of nowhere, there was major tension building and there still is.