▲ | cryptonector 5 days ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||
> This is why the US has strong protections for speech, so that we don't get arbitrary determinations of what's acceptable and what's not. The First Amendment is about stopping the government from stopping you from saying the things you want to say. The First Amendment says nothing about social norms. People in this thread are asking for people to tone down the rhetoric, something that seems eminently reasonable. Think of it this way: if you want to insist that so and so are "a threat to democracy", what's to stop them from similarly inciting violence towards you? Generalized violence would not be good for anyone, including those who might currently feel safe from it. The golden rule is always in effect. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | yibg 5 days ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||
My core objection is the claim that saying so and so is "a threat to democracy" is inciting violence. Where as so and so "is going to destroy our society" is not? One doesn't seem any more extreme than the other to me. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|