Objectification, hate, rape threats: the politicians debating online abuse mean well, but to truly understand, they need to see what I see
Objectification, hate, rape threats: the politicians debating online abuse mean well, but to truly understand, they need to see what I see
Sorry what? Tech billionaires don’t have to enable the free speech of sexually harassing a child online.
And if your argument is that sexually harassing a child online is “free speech” - and that’s the best argument you have - that’s not a good argument.
My argument is that it’s illegal for the govt to regulate such speech.
What kind of accountability were you referring to? Were you expecting tech billionaires to hold themselves accountable?
The article is from a UK newspaper. What is and isn’t legal for them to regulate is decided by their Parliament and nobody else. No Kings, and all that.
Meanwhile, you should know that the “free speech” lectures are getting pretty old from the country that checks social media history at the border to make sure you didn’t say anything bad about the Dear Leader, which shuts down TV shows it doesn’t like, and generally ensures the media toes the party line.
(See also - lectures on why kids shooting up schools is a necessary price to pay for that well regulated militia that will be along to save you from tyrants, well, real soon now…)
That’s also illegal. A rational person would argue to prevent that. An irrational person would suggest that it means we should move deeper into anarchy.
Go yell “fire” in a crowded theater, or “i have a bomb” on an airplane and see just how quickly the government regulates your speech.
Common misconception. That’s not illegal. Nor is it what’s happening.