Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower
Listen, my only point was to point out that Sebastian made an untrue statement. He was wrong, and I was right, and I am still owed an apology in the aforementioned format. But really, these laws work great for private causes of action and that's it? There are tons of criminal laws pertaining to non-defamatory cyber-speech. Thurgreed mentioned cyber-stalking. You can make terroristic threats on Facebook. Extortion. All the federal crimes GGG was alluding to. Are you being intentionally dense about this? I expect provocative absolutisms from Sebastian, that's his schtick. But I'm beginning to think you're a little too invested in this issue. Do you have a kid who suffered at the hands of some anti-bullying zealot? But back to my original point, all of the laws mentioned above, and many others, prevent me from saying whatever I want to about someone else on Facebook, even if my speech is non-defamatory. So where's my fucking apology?
|
I'm all about "the First Amendment is not absolute." Ask the fucking Rosenbergs about "make no law." But: We Have A Law Against Thing 'A'; Logically We Can Have A Law Against Thing 'B' is definitely not a winning strategy. I read cases against school districts who impose discipline for pure speech acts, and they don't always come out like you'd expect.
