I disagree. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence. His consequence is that the other people that live in the society he shares is fed up with him and do not want him to take part in it anymore. He can go somewhere else. We don’t want to hear it.
I used to feel the same in these situations, but then I learned about the paradox of tolerance. Now I am much more of the opinion that James is free to say whatever he wants about any subject, but no one is required to give him a platform to do so.
I don’t understand free speech absolutists. You don’t think that maybe calling for all Palestinians to be killed is maybe a bit genocidal and should perhaps be discouraged on a social media platform?
Mind you this isn’t a law and wouldn’t lead to any actual limiting of liberties, it just means we discourage genocide on social media. Something that seems pretty reasonable to me, and I think any large enough platform should probably feel some obligation to do.
His comment rightly SHOULDN’T be removed. I strongly disagree with him, but he should be allowed to say it.
I disagree. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence. His consequence is that the other people that live in the society he shares is fed up with him and do not want him to take part in it anymore. He can go somewhere else. We don’t want to hear it.
“Allowed” by whom?
The right to free speech protects him from the government, not a content policy from a private company.
Free speech is a concept that exists outside the first ammendment or other laws. Pretending it doesn’t is intellectually dishonest.
I mean, sure, it’s a concept that exists, but so is the concept of, “Talk shit, get hit.”
Concepts aren’t enforcable. Laws and policies are. Please learn the difference.
Talk shit get hit is a pithy quote compared to millenia of philosophy on the importance of free speech.
Freedom of speech does not cover threads or encouraging to harm others
It’s funny how that rule often gets applied unevenly to one side, though.
What do you mean? I dont see this being the case
I used to feel the same in these situations, but then I learned about the paradox of tolerance. Now I am much more of the opinion that James is free to say whatever he wants about any subject, but no one is required to give him a platform to do so.
I don’t understand free speech absolutists. You don’t think that maybe calling for all Palestinians to be killed is maybe a bit genocidal and should perhaps be discouraged on a social media platform?
Mind you this isn’t a law and wouldn’t lead to any actual limiting of liberties, it just means we discourage genocide on social media. Something that seems pretty reasonable to me, and I think any large enough platform should probably feel some obligation to do.
I wonder if they would still feel that way if they knew how radio stations were used to foment the Rwandan genocide?
Who am I kidding? Probably.
I’ll agree he should be allowed to say it when people who say shit like this get held accountable and suffer consequences.
so, in essence, i disagree.
Stfu with your support for hate speech.
Why do you think this? I want you to spell out your reasoning.
It deliberately violates one of Elon’s rules. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1725645884409401435?t=of_wAna2huOq-T3xFaOk4A&s=19