Terthna
Professional Lurker
That's what it means to be dedicated to freedom of speech as a principle; you have to defend ALL speech, as otherwise it's meaningless.Yes, that is exactly what I want.
That's what it means to be dedicated to freedom of speech as a principle; you have to defend ALL speech, as otherwise it's meaningless.Yes, that is exactly what I want.
I mean, we let @Abhorsen speak here despite his opinions differing from ours in many ways.
Aww, thank you.Abhorsen will be right with us on the same wall if the firing squad comes and he knows it.
That said If thats the way I go so be it at least I will have pleasant company.
That's what it means to be dedicated to freedom of speech as a principle; you have to defend ALL speech, as otherwise it's meaningless.
Curiously, no one seems to have argued this in the era of the Hays Code, or of obscenity laws throughout the history of the United States.
It is a nice idea, but the demorats would immedially move to ensure THEIR people are the ones taking the survey. They love this kind of infiltration, after all.If I had my druthers I'd go for something like a "clear meaning" amendment to the constitution. Every five years the government takes the entire law code and has random surveys of people read the laws and answer multiple choice questions on them. If the citizens (a majority percentage) aren't able to tell what the law does it's automatically repealed as being too poorly worded and unclear. If they can't agree on what the law would affect or how it works (such as poorly worded obscenity laws) the law is automatically repealed.
This would have the knock-on effect of allowing the citizenry to repeal extremely unpopular laws by deliberately flubbing the test on them. This is a feature, not a bug.
Granted this is pretty much wishful thinking as such an amendment would be nearly impossible and the powers that be have zero interest in handing over such power to the people.
.....Ok? People are hypocrites and don't consistently uphold the ideas they profess to hold. That's not exactly a shocking revelation.
there are all sorts of reasons why it is important to know how to make bombs, such a mining, demolition, and the manufacture of military armaments.I mean I think preventing bomb making instructions is even going to far for one your going to have to cut out chemistry class for that to do anything knowledge shouldn’t be censored period besides again that’s a hop and skip away from banning stuff like how to make fireworks or guns
Unfortunately, any attempt to fix our broken system is going to run into the problem that a lot of people like that it's broken.It is a nice idea, but the demorats would immedially move to ensure THEIR people are the ones taking the survey. They love this kind of infiltration, after all.
And honestly, I am nervous with people putting up videos with instructions about how to put together IEDs using house hold chemicals. But this seems a slightly separate debate.
How's that any different from a publisher or a newspaper? There was that publisher who was going to publish a book by Josh Hawley but decided not to do so because of 1/6. That affected the public discourse. Is that illegal? Is it illegal when I send a column to the New York Times demanding that it be plastered in the editorial pages and the Times laughs in my face? I'd observe that we have had newspapers and publishers in the past who have affected the American political discourse as much if not more so than Twitter. Twitter didn't literally drag this country into a war unlike Hearst.It isn't illegal, but it should be. The fact of the matter is that Twitter is a platform where the majority of people communicate; if you aren't on on Twitter, your ability to reach people is sorely hampered when compared to those who are. By selectively banning people from their platform, Twitter is controlling the public discourse to a significant degree. In short, due to their prominence, they have defacto power over freedom of speech.