Am I “they” in your statement? I’m not familiar with what whoever this is. If a person is saying “you should shoot ICE agents with guns when you see them, here’s where they are going to be at X time” thats pretty reasonable to not tolerate. As its a direct call to action with details that allow an individual or group to become an imminent threat. You can go to jail for that and if you facilitate it by not moderating it, I’d imagine you’re also culpable. If they say “ICE is a contemporary gestapo and is flagrantly committing crimes against humans” thats an unreasonable thing to censor. Again, my knowledge on the statement posted is limited but I’d imagine they are talking about statements like the former, not the latter.
What you think doesn’t matter if it is objectively illegal. I don’t think the speed limit should be 65 on my favorite highway. I think it should be 90. Yet I will still be pulled over,ticketed and maybe arrested if I go 90 there.
Yeah, impunity is the sticking point there lmao. You and I don’t have that nor should we nor should ICE even though they seem to. Keeping yourself out of jail is step one on making a change. Making it demonstrably easier to put you in jail (by posting threats or non 1A protected speech on a PUBLIC PLATFORM) is idiotic. Like I said in another comment saying shit like I’m talking about is almost always strictly performative. If it wasn’t you’d be out there shooting people or facilitating that act. Not saying how it should or could happen on social media. If you’re using social media to facilitate an act of violence that is a crime, like I laid out in my other comment. Remember step one.
Given the first amendment and the supreme courts stance on originalism one could make a compelling argument that this type of speech is legal. As an example. One could further point to any example of the current administration or the police or examine historical injustice codified into law. Or, just look at Israeli actions.
Laws are enforced by power. And are dictated by societal pressure. They are not objective in the slightest. There’s an entire profession dedicated to the subjectivity of laws.
by “extreme violence” they mean speaking against ICE btw
Am I “they” in your statement? I’m not familiar with what whoever this is. If a person is saying “you should shoot ICE agents with guns when you see them, here’s where they are going to be at X time” thats pretty reasonable to not tolerate. As its a direct call to action with details that allow an individual or group to become an imminent threat. You can go to jail for that and if you facilitate it by not moderating it, I’d imagine you’re also culpable. If they say “ICE is a contemporary gestapo and is flagrantly committing crimes against humans” thats an unreasonable thing to censor. Again, my knowledge on the statement posted is limited but I’d imagine they are talking about statements like the former, not the latter.
I don’t think the first statement shouldn’t be tolerated.
What you think doesn’t matter if it is objectively illegal. I don’t think the speed limit should be 65 on my favorite highway. I think it should be 90. Yet I will still be pulled over,ticketed and maybe arrested if I go 90 there.
Lmao imagine Arguing what is legal and what is illegal when discussing dealing with ICE and all the illegal shit they do with impunity every say
Yeah, impunity is the sticking point there lmao. You and I don’t have that nor should we nor should ICE even though they seem to. Keeping yourself out of jail is step one on making a change. Making it demonstrably easier to put you in jail (by posting threats or non 1A protected speech on a PUBLIC PLATFORM) is idiotic. Like I said in another comment saying shit like I’m talking about is almost always strictly performative. If it wasn’t you’d be out there shooting people or facilitating that act. Not saying how it should or could happen on social media. If you’re using social media to facilitate an act of violence that is a crime, like I laid out in my other comment. Remember step one.
There is no such thing as objectively illegal.
Given the first amendment and the supreme courts stance on originalism one could make a compelling argument that this type of speech is legal. As an example. One could further point to any example of the current administration or the police or examine historical injustice codified into law. Or, just look at Israeli actions.
Laws are enforced by power. And are dictated by societal pressure. They are not objective in the slightest. There’s an entire profession dedicated to the subjectivity of laws.
That’s one way to look at it.
What does objective mean to you