While I whole heartedly agree that for free speech to thrive we need to stand up for the rights of people whose speech we disagree with, your analysis regarding Trump is not only entirely misleading it is legally wrong. Twitter makes it clear that Trump was banned for these tweets "[i]n the context of horrific events this week," i.e., Tr…
While I whole heartedly agree that for free speech to thrive we need to stand up for the rights of people whose speech we disagree with, your analysis regarding Trump is not only entirely misleading it is legally wrong. Twitter makes it clear that Trump was banned for these tweets "[i]n the context of horrific events this week," i.e., Trump just tried to steal an election and incited an insurrection with those same people he referred to as "patriots" in his tweet. Regardless, legally speaking Trump, and no one else, is entitled to free speech rights on Twitter. Our free speech rights are a constitutional guarantee from the First Amendment, which only restrains government restrictions not private restrictions. Although I believe this needs to change in our current tech heavy speech world until it does Trump had no free speech rights on Twitter that could be violated. Moreover, even if he did Twitter would have been well within the parameters of regulating free speech as speech that incites violence and/or criminal conduct is not protected speech, and Trump just incited an insurrection and criminal conduct with similar language. None of this is applicable to what happened to DxE supporters on the street in Utah which was a blatant violation of constitutional free speech rights.
These are all very sound and reasonable points, Pat. And I very much do agree that there are important distinctions between Trump's "glorification of violence" and our alleged words doing the same. Not the least of which, of course, is that Trump's words actually did play a role in causing violence, in all likelihood. In contrast, the only violence caused by AR activists' words is "violence" against corporate profits. That's not violence, in any meaningful sense of the word.
My main concern, however, is about precedent. Even if we think these cases are very different, is the cost of creating a precedent, where merely suggestive words, that can be interpreted in various ways, can be censored as violent... is that precedent likely to be used to. make the world a better place? I suspect not, esp in a world as polarized as the one we live in today.
All valid concerns Wayne, that deserve consideration. It is my belief, though, that concern about precedents should never be a deterrent for filing a free speech lawsuit or for prosecuting people who are accused of acting outside the parameters of Free Speech Rights, as these cases are how we establish the parameters of our right, and just about every case has the potential to set bad/good precedent. Two very important non-free speech cases- Brown v. Board Of Education & Obergefell v. Hodges - were won despite people who opposed filing them for fear of setting bad precedent. It is my understanding, based on experience, that our courts are required to consider the different circumstances surrounding different free speech cases, such as the circumstances regarding Trump's speech versus DxE's speech in Utah. I may be an anomaly but I trust our system, even though I recognize its flaws and think there have been, and continue to be, some bad precedents being set. However, precedents can always be challenged and overturned, e.g., Plessey v. Ferguson and more recently Roe v. Wade.
Pat, and here in lies one of the main problems of suppressing free speech. You say Trump incited an “insurrection” on January 6th. You totally ignore the fact that he asked for a peaceful protest at “The Peoples House”, and you ignore the fact that the capital police opened the doors for the protestors, and that BLM members were also in the crowd. One protester actually sat in Pelosi’s chair and I think he still sits in solitary confinement for this “violent” crime against the government. Where is your rage about the real violence from Antifa and BLM? Where cities were completely destroyed and people died! Ashli Babbitt, an “Unarmed” Air Force veteran was killed by capital police on January 6th.
In your mind, I should have no right to express my feelings, but you should. This is exactly what Wayne was trying to convey in this podcast.
I am a Monthly supporter of DxE, and I’m also a Trump supporter. I have been to many protests for animals, and have had guns pointed at me (and hell yes, it’s terrifying). You have no right to cancel me anymore than I have a right to cancel you. But the difference is, I’m Not trying to cancel you because you don’t share all my beliefs. When you cancel me, you cancel an animal rights activist. This podcast was well thought out and beautifully written, but it seems what he was trying to convey was canceled by your hatred of me.
While I whole heartedly agree that for free speech to thrive we need to stand up for the rights of people whose speech we disagree with, your analysis regarding Trump is not only entirely misleading it is legally wrong. Twitter makes it clear that Trump was banned for these tweets "[i]n the context of horrific events this week," i.e., Trump just tried to steal an election and incited an insurrection with those same people he referred to as "patriots" in his tweet. Regardless, legally speaking Trump, and no one else, is entitled to free speech rights on Twitter. Our free speech rights are a constitutional guarantee from the First Amendment, which only restrains government restrictions not private restrictions. Although I believe this needs to change in our current tech heavy speech world until it does Trump had no free speech rights on Twitter that could be violated. Moreover, even if he did Twitter would have been well within the parameters of regulating free speech as speech that incites violence and/or criminal conduct is not protected speech, and Trump just incited an insurrection and criminal conduct with similar language. None of this is applicable to what happened to DxE supporters on the street in Utah which was a blatant violation of constitutional free speech rights.
These are all very sound and reasonable points, Pat. And I very much do agree that there are important distinctions between Trump's "glorification of violence" and our alleged words doing the same. Not the least of which, of course, is that Trump's words actually did play a role in causing violence, in all likelihood. In contrast, the only violence caused by AR activists' words is "violence" against corporate profits. That's not violence, in any meaningful sense of the word.
My main concern, however, is about precedent. Even if we think these cases are very different, is the cost of creating a precedent, where merely suggestive words, that can be interpreted in various ways, can be censored as violent... is that precedent likely to be used to. make the world a better place? I suspect not, esp in a world as polarized as the one we live in today.
All valid concerns Wayne, that deserve consideration. It is my belief, though, that concern about precedents should never be a deterrent for filing a free speech lawsuit or for prosecuting people who are accused of acting outside the parameters of Free Speech Rights, as these cases are how we establish the parameters of our right, and just about every case has the potential to set bad/good precedent. Two very important non-free speech cases- Brown v. Board Of Education & Obergefell v. Hodges - were won despite people who opposed filing them for fear of setting bad precedent. It is my understanding, based on experience, that our courts are required to consider the different circumstances surrounding different free speech cases, such as the circumstances regarding Trump's speech versus DxE's speech in Utah. I may be an anomaly but I trust our system, even though I recognize its flaws and think there have been, and continue to be, some bad precedents being set. However, precedents can always be challenged and overturned, e.g., Plessey v. Ferguson and more recently Roe v. Wade.
Pat, and here in lies one of the main problems of suppressing free speech. You say Trump incited an “insurrection” on January 6th. You totally ignore the fact that he asked for a peaceful protest at “The Peoples House”, and you ignore the fact that the capital police opened the doors for the protestors, and that BLM members were also in the crowd. One protester actually sat in Pelosi’s chair and I think he still sits in solitary confinement for this “violent” crime against the government. Where is your rage about the real violence from Antifa and BLM? Where cities were completely destroyed and people died! Ashli Babbitt, an “Unarmed” Air Force veteran was killed by capital police on January 6th.
In your mind, I should have no right to express my feelings, but you should. This is exactly what Wayne was trying to convey in this podcast.
I am a Monthly supporter of DxE, and I’m also a Trump supporter. I have been to many protests for animals, and have had guns pointed at me (and hell yes, it’s terrifying). You have no right to cancel me anymore than I have a right to cancel you. But the difference is, I’m Not trying to cancel you because you don’t share all my beliefs. When you cancel me, you cancel an animal rights activist. This podcast was well thought out and beautifully written, but it seems what he was trying to convey was canceled by your hatred of me.