Free speech may not be the relevant criticism here, but there's... somewhat of a discomfort of a government (if admittedly foreign) agency calling out specific individuals. I know we're in the era of terminally online politicians, but this crosses some sort of professionalism boundary?
EDIT: Which is to say, it's not illegal or anything, but I'm sending a frowning emoji.
> but this crosses some sort of professionalism boundary?
I don't know. I assume any organisation interested in directing online discourse about subjects it is vested in does something like this. Especially political organisations.
This is politics. Kinda dirty, but that's what it is, I guess. It's probably only noteworthy because the context and persons/groups involved are noteworthy.
> In the United States, commercial speech is "entitled to substantial First Amendment protection, albeit less than political, ideological, or artistic speech".
Now, the IDF isn't under US jurisdiction, but the idea that only individual humans have rights is... not supported by the facts.
Care to elaborate? No one's right to speech has been affected here; not pg's nor the IDF's. Free speech has never been the right to not be trolled.
Free speech may not be the relevant criticism here, but there's... somewhat of a discomfort of a government (if admittedly foreign) agency calling out specific individuals. I know we're in the era of terminally online politicians, but this crosses some sort of professionalism boundary?
EDIT: Which is to say, it's not illegal or anything, but I'm sending a frowning emoji.
> but this crosses some sort of professionalism boundary?
I don't know. I assume any organisation interested in directing online discourse about subjects it is vested in does something like this. Especially political organisations.
This is politics. Kinda dirty, but that's what it is, I guess. It's probably only noteworthy because the context and persons/groups involved are noteworthy.
IDF is not a person. Does 2FA apply to states and corporations? I see this more as manipulation and misinformation rather than free speech.
Paul Graham's hasn't, you mean. The IDF is not a person; it has no rights.
That's not universally true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_speech
> In the United States, commercial speech is "entitled to substantial First Amendment protection, albeit less than political, ideological, or artistic speech".
Now, the IDF isn't under US jurisdiction, but the idea that only individual humans have rights is... not supported by the facts.
3 replies →
[flagged]
Lol why was this flagged?!