> 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.
What's happening here is plain for everyone to see. IDF has much much more resources, power and influence to suppress the free speech of individuals. You are using IDF's right to free speech as a way to justify the suppression.
Again, free speech has never been the right to not be trolled, or criticized, or made fun of, or debunked. Swap out the IDF for JK Rowling or Bill Gates sending their followers at someone; there's never been a requirement for equal power between the two speakers for the right to exist.
(It's not like pg doesn't have his own resources and connections, anyways.)
A "the IDF cannot troll people on Twitter" law would seem to limit free speech, not enhance it.
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.
What's happening here is plain for everyone to see. IDF has much much more resources, power and influence to suppress the free speech of individuals. You are using IDF's right to free speech as a way to justify the suppression.
Again, free speech has never been the right to not be trolled, or criticized, or made fun of, or debunked. Swap out the IDF for JK Rowling or Bill Gates sending their followers at someone; there's never been a requirement for equal power between the two speakers for the right to exist.
(It's not like pg doesn't have his own resources and connections, anyways.)
A "the IDF cannot troll people on Twitter" law would seem to limit free speech, not enhance it.
1 reply →