I don't get how libel and slander laws, get lumped into free speech arguments
spam
seal.mp4<:vinny:631324820386349077><:vinny:631324820386349077><:vinny:631324820386349077>
Jump to date
Sunday, January 12, 2020
No, it wouldn't be gent. you would be defending yourself from a false narrative
if you can prove malicious intent
you can sue
because anti free speech people are retards
Neither of those examples were any good though gent
that one annoys me bopit
and here is why
proving that speech intends to do harm, is a hard bar to satisfy
it is not the act of saying fire
something being illegal and being censored are two different things
but it's such a rare corner case
go to a theatre and say fire, you can
it is the act of causing panic
that is the illegal part
it's the intention to do harm Pika
yes exactly
If that guy wants to scream fire when there's no fire he can but he needs to be ready to face any consequences of his actions
if you legitimately believe there to be a fire
it's fine
Gent do you know what censorship is
It's when the Jews kick you off YouTube
For causing mass panic? Depends
being arrested isnt being censored
do people die?
that is censorship too
no it isnt
And Dialga, I hate that argument
I hate every time someone posts that gay xkcd comic about "speech has consequences"
How fucked are your prisons if you can't have visitors
