• S_204@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    That’s the legal definition. It’s insane that you’re trying to argue that THAT is what’s needed to consider the limiting of speech to be unacceptable. Your bias has clouded your ability to reason. I’m quite sure you’re not making those claims about the campus protests being shut down by the schools.

    • pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Campus protests being shut down by schools is absolutely a completely different situation than someone being invited to give a speech. Saying no to someone giving a speech isn’t punishing them.

      As you’ve been told multiple times, free speech doesn’t guarantee you a platform wherever or whenever you want. In fact, by your definition of free speech, the entire parliamentary procedure is a violation of free speech. Which is a ridiculous take.

      • S_204@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        You’re right, it is very different. The campus encampments are calling for intifada. Calling for violence should not be accepted. That is starkly different from an invitation to a foreign Ally being scuttled by people too afraid to hear what someone has to say.

        • pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Yes, calling for the Palestinian people to rise up against the invading country that is actively genociding them is definitely a bad thing.

          I’m being sarcastic, so hopefully that was obvious.