> Freedom of speech also means freedom to leave.
It does but you could also not look at his tweets. Shouldn't other people on the platform be able to decide whether they wish to see (or not see) the tweets they wish to?
It does but you could also not look at his tweets. Shouldn't other people on the platform be able to decide whether they wish to see (or not see) the tweets they wish to?
But I will not contribute 1 cent/penny/vote in advertising revenue towards a platform that hosts that horsesh!t.
I'm going to try my best to find a more matured and curated (and long lived) kind of horsesh!t that's closer to actual truths than the fresh and regular horsesh!t on twitter.
We should probably stop now. Good luck.
Twitter does put a lot of stuff from people one doesn’t follow in their feed though. I imagine the problem would be a lot less severe if they didn’t push for this kind of “engagement.”
it's also about public good and legitimate intention to stop attacks on the foundations of our republic and stop the spread of dangerous (imho should. be libelous under law to combat) lies.
complicated and can become paternalistic, deciding what is best for someone. but we do that (or used to, vaccines and mask pushback) all the time on other dangers.
You are able to block the account and then you wouldn't see retweets. If they screenshot something then you could shrug and get on with your day in the knowledge that you'd stopped most of the stuff, or block your friend. I'd give users more tools, like the one Twitter itself has, to rate accounts and shape the kind of tweets one can see.
> it's also about public good and legitimate intention to stop attacks on the foundations of our republic and stop the spread of dangerous (imho should. be libelous under law to combat) lies.
If stopping lies comes at the cost of undermining free speech for everyone, then it would be the thing undermining the republic, far more than a known liar lying.
I rely on Mill for my views on bad men speaking bad things:
> It is also often argued, and still oftener thought, that none but bad men would desire to weaken these salutary beliefs; and there can be nothing wrong, it is thought, in restraining bad men, and prohibiting what only such men would wish to practise. This mode of thinking makes the justification of restraints on discussion not a question of the truth of doctrines, but of their usefulness; and flatters itself by that means to escape the responsibility of claiming to be an infallible judge of opinions. But those who thus satisfy themselves, do not perceive that the assumption of infallibility is merely shifted from one point to another. The usefulness of an opinion is itself matter of opinion: as disputable, as open to discussion, and requiring discussion as much, as the opinion itself. There is the same need of an infallible judge of opinions to decide an opinion to be noxious, as to decide it to be false, unless the opinion condemned has full opportunity of defending itself. And it will not do to say that the heretic may be allowed to maintain the utility or harmlessness of his opinion, though forbidden to maintain its truth. The truth of an opinion is part of its utility. If we would know whether or not it is desirable that a proposition should be believed, is it possible to exclude the consideration of whether or not it is true?
Trump & members of Congress's actions are not "opinion: disputable, open to discussion." Clear facts that actually happened.
The election was free and fair. Fact.
There was minuscule fraud which did not affect outcomes, even on the smallest level. Plus a decent chunk of the worst offenders were Republicans including the COS who actively engaged in this sedition. Fact.
Congress was violently attacked. Fact.
Trump & sworn Government Representatives tried to overturn the election, subvert democracy, and overthrow the Government. Fact.
That can not be supported and is a clear exception to free speech that is grossly & intentionally harmful.
Hence, those facts, as you assert, are moot. Additionally, as Mill wrote:
> Strange it is, that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free discussion, but object to their being "pushed to an extreme;" not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case. Strange that they should imagine that they are not assuming infallibility, when they acknowledge that there should be free discussion on all subjects which can possibly be doubtful, but think that some particular principle or doctrine should be forbidden to be questioned because it is so certain, that is, because they are certain that it is certain. To call any proposition certain, while there is any one who would deny its certainty if permitted, but who is not permitted, is to assume that we ourselves, and those who agree with us, are the judges of certainty, and judges without hearing the other side.
Hence, the veracity of those facts is irrelevant.
> That can not be supported and is a clear exception to free speech that is grossly & intentionally harmful.
Here we find a limit - should speech that is knowingly wrong and malicious be allowed? We're back to infallibility. Are you going to prove to me that Trump committed mens rea, or do you think he'd be able to claim he really believes the election was stolen from him? You don't have the ability to read minds.
His actions are clear, direct, immediate threat and dangerous. Speech his says to support that should not be accepted.
Did you skip over the bit where Mill mentions infallibility?
> His actions are clear, direct, immediate threat and dangerous.
Not according to US law.
> Speech his says to support that should not be accepted.
As Chomsky would say, even Stalin and Goebbels were in favour of freedom of speech for speech they agreed with.
To the below comment, I do believe courts have interpreted and created law which applies to Trump's words and actions, specifically on reasonable restrictions to speech which incites, creates, has immediate danger.
Trump's actions and words fit that and he is culpable for the actions resulting from his words.
On the actual law surrounding the consequences of his speech and attempts to subvert our Government and Democracy
Fourteenth Amendment Section 3 No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Law specific says incites https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/par...
The legal system is already adequate to deal with libel. If someone libels you then you can sue in civil court.