Because of the newest stupid shit Bob M*rtin is spouting, I'll be competely clear:
FREE SPEECH IS NOT ABOUT WHETHER A PRIVATE COMPANY IS WILLING TO TOLERATE YOUR SHIT.
HATE SPEECH IS NOT PROTECTED SPEECH.
FREE SPEECH IS NOT ABOUT WHETHER A PRIVATE COMPANY IS WILLING TO TOLERATE YOUR SHIT.
HATE SPEECH IS NOT PROTECTED SPEECH.
For reference... The first amendment of the constitution of the United States of America.
law.cornell.edu/constitution/f…
law.cornell.edu/constitution/f…
The important part:
"Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
"Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Here's a handy reference of speech which is not protected under the first amendment.
freedomforuminstitute.org/about/faq/whic…
freedomforuminstitute.org/about/faq/whic…
Any incitement to violence is not protected. (Other fun, violent insurrection is violence) Twitter, as a private company, can define tend of service, but incitement to violence goes beyond simple terms of service.
Yes, you can actually say things that are not protected.
Yes, you can actually say things that are not protected.
Amendment to prior statement. Hate speech, apparently, IS protected speech. (gross)
Incitement to violence is NOT protected speech.
In other words, being a racist piece of garbage is legal, but encouraging someone to inflict violence upon someone else is not.
Incitement to violence is NOT protected speech.
In other words, being a racist piece of garbage is legal, but encouraging someone to inflict violence upon someone else is not.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
