People who 'advocate' for threats, assault, or death of people should never be permitted. Like, for example, Kiwi Farms. They've advocated for online bullying, threats, and ended up getting a bunch of people killed.
Threats, assault, and murder is different since they represent real and substantial harm that is universal recognized. Thoughts are permitted, but the acts are not, which include threats. The line between thoughts and threats might be fuzzy, but the distinction is not.
The legal question around Kiwi Farms has nothing to do with freedom of speech and everything to do with the legal theory of assisting, and platform liability.
in some cases it hosts published content that is criminal on paper (federally: non consensual intimate images under take it down act, or state charges: PII under californias anti doxing law just to name one. There are others), this simply has not been enforced or litigated successfully, nor defended on strictly 1a grounds yet.
So far it has racked up multiple successful defenses hiding behind section 230, not 1a.
There have been a couple of incidents where someone may have had standing to sue a poster (on any of the aforementioned grounds) who “could not” be identified. [0]
At the present time 230 keeps KF itself from being a defendant.
[0] The same guy who tells cops and courts that he shreds his logs after 30 days somehow finds a way to call out a user who has exclusively been using Tor for two years, (oh. Now he has logs going back several years.) but I digress.
Theres different ways to protest. Being an obvious target isn't what I do.
> Theres different ways to protest. Being an obvious target isn't what I do.
How do you reconcile those two statements?
A lot of people get angry when I call out people as liars, but sometimes these people are just fucking lying to everyone and you have to call a spade a spade.
Pay close attention to section "General Interference with Organizations and Production" pages 28-32.
> "Its why I can insult and talk terrible of president Turnip (spit) and not fear the gulag."
But then you say:
> "But I also stay quiet publicly. Speaking out is a way to get the hammer."
In other words, you're afraid to exercise your first amendment rights. You feel that you can't, in fact "insult and talk terrible of president Turnip" without unacceptable consequences.
He is lying or suffering cognitive dissonance.
You cannot rectify his statements in another way, beyond the third option that calls his mental faculties into question.
I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming he’s mentally all there, but that leads to my aforementioned options for them.