Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
You are somewhat beyond free speech rights in seeking to destroy someone financially. You can be sued for that. Are you suggesting I am advocating that crim prosecution be an available sanction against Twitter mobs and boycott nuts? I think I’ve made clear I’m 100% opposed to that.
You should be allowed to say anything you like. As a society, we should judge as odious all attempts to silence speakers via economic means. It’s legal, of course, and it must remain so, but just as Trump’s gaming of the system in endless ways should not be celebrated, shutting speakers up by taking their jobs or pushing advertisers via boycott is “hacking” or end-running around free speech, which contemplates a self-regulating market of ideas. That gaming deserves to be viewed as what it is - a dumb thug’s response.
Trump is the king of crushing critics via lawsuit. I see no difference between those loathsome “spend the little guy into the ground” tactics and organized mob panics of low people seeking a famous person’s head for some comment they find offensive.
|
I'm somewhat beyond free speech rights but should be able to say anything I like? Using economic means against speech you don't like is legal (of course) and must remain so but is also beyond free speech rights? I mean, I get it. If you argue every side of a position, then you're likely to be right at least some of the time. So you just keep on keeping on, defending free speech absolutely. Except when you don't like that speech.
