She literally says she wants the government to do it, and doesn't think that companies like Twitter should be able to exercise their free speech and freedom off association.
But, to take that out of the hands of a private entity, is to remove freedom of association. That's the point.
- - - Updated - - -
But, I'm just trying to use speech...
Wait until you figure it out...
SO, you should have no issue with a company kicking someone off their fucking property. But, since you do, you're being a hypocrite on the issue.
It's art... expression.
So, if that feces is the only limiting factor, then you should have no problem taking it out of the equation, and saying I can come over to your house, scream racist shit at your family, and you cannot kick me off your property.
Is that your stance?
Yeah, i get it, but please believe me, that the 1st amendment and freedom of association are not that big of a deal in the public perception here. We're quite aware of our rights, especially the freedom of speech, and we fight for a lot of them (and some of the imagined as well), but we don't have that kind of .. dogmatic ... approach to "1st amendment!!!!"
I even agree with you on principle, but i think you're reaching too far if you think her goal is to limit the freedom of expression of companies. I don't think she's actually thinking about it.
If you read her words in german i think it would be more clear, what she means is that IF someone should do it, it should be the government, not private entities without any control or public oversight.
Which of course runs contrary to freedom of association.
That's why i agree with you and think she is wrong. But to construct a desire to censor, seems a bit far fetched. Didn't you make a post a few hours ago where you told a european about how he doesn't know how the dc police feels and why local insight might be helpful? I feel we're now in a similar situation. I get your point, and you're right, but in this case you have to take the european discussion on the matter into context.
Last edited by Pannonian; 2021-01-11 at 08:48 PM.
Except, they are a huge deal over here... even when many have it completely ass backwards in what it means. And honestly, like a lot of things, it means different things in different countries. In the United States, that means government isn't getting in the way of such things.
Sure, that's why she's wrong, but as i said, i'm pretty sure there is no more sinister plan to limit freedom of association.
Fun Fact:
Currently, the biggest tv station in germany is sendings its xth season of Germanies next Idol (the german version "Deutschland sucht den Superstart"). They already filmed most of it, when one of the judges drifted into the far right edge of the internet with all kind of conspiracy theories. Last week (after another distasteful holocaust reference) they decided to censor him from the show. The viewed an episode last saturday, the guy fully blurred and any of his lines cut out.
Not one politician or media outlet disagreed with that. So there really is no desire to limit freedom of association, it's just that the discussion from the german region translates badly in the context of the US.