Message from @Comrade Skeltal
Discord ID: 421041451787354122
Its literally JUST slander
And it's meant to protect business
Which can ruin the person's reputation and that's threatening to the person
The same way copyright is used to protect business
Copyright also, isnt anything to do with a threat
But again, a form of limiting speecg
They're written into law and you inherently benefit from them, we all do, and you're claiming they somehow aren't real
I dont understand your malfunction
Free speech is fine and useful for arguments and debates and conversations so long as someone doesn't directly threaten someone or cause possible harm to the person.
LAW
a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.
You're wrong
I dont understand why you're still going
How so?
The point is who can say what
Is limited at any given time
Regardless as to whether we think it's "good" to limit those forms of speech
Or not
Anyone can say anything so long as it doesn't cause direct and intentional harm.
Apparently not
Apparently Nazis can run around and say all sorts of shit that causes intentional harm
Such as?
Yet you'll use libel to protect business
You're trying to draw all these distinctions that literally don't exist
What do I justify that nazis do that causes intentional harm?
Nazi here, AMA
Gg
Wondering when the Nazis would come
What do I justify that nazis do that causes intentional harm? @Deleted User
We are always watching 😈
And I'm not going to speak to your personal actions E, don't use semantics
I mean as a liberal public
@Mr.E#2794 I dont know
Point is your definition of free speech literally isnt the one we use
I'm not using semantics. You said You're so I assumed you were talking about me.
There can only be ONE free speech
No I mean you as a liberal
And you knew I did
Not some speech is free but some aint
Hence that's the context
Again, still not contending with every point in history and present day where we violate free speech based on legal considerations