As if that kind of dancing around would fly in court because again, the bullet grazed Trump and the firefighter got hit by it, I could probably win this and I'm not even a lawyer, there are going to be publications posting this crap that will get nuked out of existence I suspect, they fucked up.
Back in the day they absolutely would have been very careful and would have likely done very milquetoast articles on it, but you have to remember now the next generation of leftists are taking over these companies and they are absolute TDS sufferers who can't help themselves. I think even the BBC who usually at least have professionals advising them on what to say had a bit of sperg moment among others.
"A" has coercive control over another individual, "B," someone they've abused so much that B can't or won't resist A's authority or demands.
A puts B in a room with another person, "C," who's been captured by A. Speaking out loud, A orders B to kill C. B obliges.
This is not "freedom of speech." This example is the commission of several crimes that happen to use one's voice. Slander is similar in that someone "says" something that is demonstrably untrue for the purpose of falsely damaging another person. The use of speech here is just the arbitrary vehicle for the crime or tort, but the crime or tort could be committed in many different ways.
Freedom of speech does not encompass any and every literal use of the voice. There are many, many clear examples where using one's voice is incidental in hurting or damaging another person, whether figuratively or literally.
So we're clear, freedom of speech is about the uninhibited expression of truth or opinion.
As if that kind of dancing around would fly in court because again, the bullet grazed Trump and the firefighter got hit by it, I could probably win this and I'm not even a lawyer, there are going to be publications posting this crap that will get nuked out of existence I suspect, they fucked up.
Back in the day they absolutely would have been very careful and would have likely done very milquetoast articles on it, but you have to remember now the next generation of leftists are taking over these companies and they are absolute TDS sufferers who can't help themselves. I think even the BBC who usually at least have professionals advising them on what to say had a bit of sperg moment among others.
What flies in court tends to be determined more by which direction it's facing than it's aeronautical soundness these days.
You don't know what freedom of speech actually is
you created these rules, we're just following them
Free speech is different from libel and slander.
Let me give you an example:
"A" has coercive control over another individual, "B," someone they've abused so much that B can't or won't resist A's authority or demands.
A puts B in a room with another person, "C," who's been captured by A. Speaking out loud, A orders B to kill C. B obliges.
This is not "freedom of speech." This example is the commission of several crimes that happen to use one's voice. Slander is similar in that someone "says" something that is demonstrably untrue for the purpose of falsely damaging another person. The use of speech here is just the arbitrary vehicle for the crime or tort, but the crime or tort could be committed in many different ways.
Freedom of speech does not encompass any and every literal use of the voice. There are many, many clear examples where using one's voice is incidental in hurting or damaging another person, whether figuratively or literally.
So we're clear, freedom of speech is about the uninhibited expression of truth or opinion.