You can also consider that the NYT is not legally or morally obligated to publish every letter they receive. Are your first amendment rights being violated when they opt not to print your letter? No.
I don’t want to discuss with you. I don’t think you’re acting in good faith.
I mean really “sometimes laws are incorrect” -> “fascists say that” is like satire.
So your opinion on this topic is 100% based on your emotional feelings & 5 minutes of Wikipedia research, which isn’t even regarding to latter precedent like in Brandenburg v. Ohio? Maybe spend more than 5 minutes getting your emotional reassurance next time. X is a private company & so they can choose to use the free speech definition according to law, which the government can’t restrict… that means you can’t lock up people cause they offend you & can’t commit assault & murder like many people here commonly advocate for, cause to them everyone they don’t like is a Nazi.
You can run away now back to your hidey hole & then go find some people that are pro-fascist & censorship that you can agree with.
Paradox of tolerance comes to mind. If you just put up with people who want to do bad things, they’ll probably do bad things!
And it was considered before. There was a Holocaust. It was decided, via violence and other means, that naziism is not okay.
Also, Twitter is a private platform and is largely free to decide what goes on its platform.
You’re approaching fractally wrong, here.
Over 50 years of case law on the subject shows I’m right, but go on and tell me how you’re degree in emotions proves me wrong.
There are numerous cases showing that free speech is not absolute.
Law is also not necessarily correct.
And that doesn’t address that we’re talking about a private platform.
You’re still wrong, and you’re still wrong in a way that supports the absolute worst of humanity.
Both things fascist have said as well.
Also, what prominent cases in the US would you like to discuss regarding free speech where you think the courts have ruled incorrectly?
I’m not going to do legal research or write a whole thesis for you.
Maybe start here for cases where freedom of speech is not absolute: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater
You can also consider that the NYT is not legally or morally obligated to publish every letter they receive. Are your first amendment rights being violated when they opt not to print your letter? No.
I don’t want to discuss with you. I don’t think you’re acting in good faith.
I mean really “sometimes laws are incorrect” -> “fascists say that” is like satire.
So your opinion on this topic is 100% based on your emotional feelings & 5 minutes of Wikipedia research, which isn’t even regarding to latter precedent like in Brandenburg v. Ohio? Maybe spend more than 5 minutes getting your emotional reassurance next time. X is a private company & so they can choose to use the free speech definition according to law, which the government can’t restrict… that means you can’t lock up people cause they offend you & can’t commit assault & murder like many people here commonly advocate for, cause to them everyone they don’t like is a Nazi.
You can run away now back to your hidey hole & then go find some people that are pro-fascist & censorship that you can agree with.
You’re an idiot that’s not engaging with my points. I hope you die alone, removed from everything you’ve ever loved.
There it is. The vengeful & death-wishing fascist cultist. Explains why you like fascist ideals like censorship.