Spot the threat to free speech

[jon-nyc]

Interesting take from Bret Weinstein:

I wish the people who believe the President didn't intend to threaten to shoot people would talk to the people who think he did intend to threaten to shoot people and that it's a good idea. If the former were correct, the President needs to address the problem posed by the latter

[Horace]

Meanwhile it's neither fringe nor particularly noteworthy that in response to violent riots, violence is spoken openly of as a potential control measure.

[Doctor Phibes]

@Klaus said in Spot the threat to free speech:

Neither. It's like a biker bar.

I think it's more of a triker bar.

[jon-nyc]

@Horace

The tweet actually discussed shooting looters specifically.

[Horace]

Well down with that sort of thing then. Do not speak openly of violence against non-violent looters, looting in the middle of a chaotic violent riot.

[xenon]

At the very least cut off their hands, right?

[Doctor Phibes]

@Doctor-Phibes said in Spot the threat to free speech:

@Klaus said in Spot the threat to free speech:

Neither. It's like a biker bar.

I think it's more of a triker bar.

Or possibly a (short) bus stop.

[Horace]

@Doctor-Phibes said in Spot the threat to free speech:

@Doctor-Phibes said in Spot the threat to free speech:

@Klaus said in Spot the threat to free speech:

Neither. It's like a biker bar.

I think it's more of a triker bar.

Or possibly a (short) bus stop.

Where crazies talk to themselves. I know what you mean.

[Horace]

@xenon said in Spot the threat to free speech:

At the very least cut off their hands, right?

Surgically respond to them in exactly the same way the authorities may respond to a shoplifting call on a quiet Sunday afternoon at the local Walgreens.

[Larry]

@xenon said in Spot the threat to free speech:

@Larry Larry, should Liberty University exercise no censorship or control over the discourse at its campus?

I would like for my kids to go to a university that truly believes in Free Speech and fosters unfettered access to viewpoints no matter how fringe or foul.

But I also understand that there are institutions that wouldn't want that.

There are many places on the internet where you can go and say whatever you want without moderation - are you saying that there can be no privately-run platforms online that moderate content?

Now - for this particular example. I think this is a value-destroying move by Twitter, but that's a different topic.

Liberty university is not a communications platform. It is a private university not funded by taxpayer money, and it has a known set of standards. If you don't like those standards, no one forces you to go there, public discoyrse is not affected by Liberty University's stated goals. That said, i would like to attend a speech by Ben Shapiro on the Berkley campus. I do believe that school is publicly funded by tax dollars. Should Berkley change it's policy of rioting if a conservative tries to speak? You're proving my point,

Secondly, that you can find "many places on the internet" is beside the point. Twitter is a major point of public discourse. It is like a "public square". So your comparison with the internet at large doesn't work.

[xenon]

So you want the government to regulate social media.

That’s a pretty big change.

Sounds like you need some legislation, not executive orders.

[Larry]

I don't know if I want government regulation or what. I don't pretend to know the answer. To my way of thinking, Twitter is already regulating things, so it would seem the solution would be to end ANY regulation at al, including by Twitter. The problem is that Twitter "regulation" is one sided and biased.

[jon-nyc]