Objectification, hate, rape threats: the politicians debating online abuse mean well, but to truly understand, they need to see what I see
Objectification, hate, rape threats: the politicians debating online abuse mean well, but to truly understand, they need to see what I see
There’s a little thing called “free speech”. Govt doesn’t have the power to regulate speech.
E: Never though I’d live in a world where people were falling over themselves to regulate speech. What a sick sad world it is. Can you just for a millisecond imagine what that looks like when the shoe is on the other foot? What do you think fascists would do with that sort of power?
Sorry what? Tech billionaires don’t have to enable the free speech of sexually harassing a child online.
And if your argument is that sexually harassing a child online is “free speech” - and that’s the best argument you have - that’s not a good argument.
My argument is that it’s illegal for the govt to regulate such speech.
What kind of accountability were you referring to? Were you expecting tech billionaires to hold themselves accountable?
The article is from a UK newspaper. What is and isn’t legal for them to regulate is decided by their Parliament and nobody else. No Kings, and all that.
Meanwhile, you should know that the “free speech” lectures are getting pretty old from the country that checks social media history at the border to make sure you didn’t say anything bad about the Dear Leader, which shuts down TV shows it doesn’t like, and generally ensures the media toes the party line.
(See also - lectures on why kids shooting up schools is a necessary price to pay for that well regulated militia that will be along to save you from tyrants, well, real soon now…)
That’s also illegal. A rational person would argue to prevent that. An irrational person would suggest that it justifies the regulation of even more speech by an already fascist govt.
Genuinely asking here: do you think the word “illegal” means wrong?
By definition, if a sovereign government decides it’s allowed to do something, it’s not illegal. You could say it’s unethical (though I’m not sure why you would), but you can’t say it’s illegal.
…no? But I think in this particular instance, obviously yes.
…wat? Why would that be illegal?
Go yell “fire” in a crowded theater, or “i have a bomb” on an airplane and see just how quickly the government regulates your speech.
Common misconception. That’s not illegal. Nor is it what’s happening.