0
41

[–] Fambida 0 points 41 points (+41|-0) ago 

Pretty sure that interpretation of the Logan act would violate their first amendment rights, and thus not be valid. Unlike those wretched morons, we actually DO care about free speech, even theirs.

0
13

[–] JakeWasHere 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago 

The solution to bad speech is not restriction, but more speech.

0
4

[–] Fambida 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

But MUH FEELS!

0
1

[–] Fenrirwulf 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Or to not give those spewing the bad speech the attention they so greatly desire.

0
6

[–] RedditCEOEllenPao 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Yeah, I can't get behind this. When we start policing people for their speech, we're no better than them.

0
4

[–] 0dds_0f_Even [S] 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

I'm against it too even though I think Sarkeesian & Quinn are the biggest scumbags I wish I never heard of.

0
10

[–] muniea 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

Dumb.

Is it troll sock accounts signing the bloody thing? 5330 signitures, at this point.

0
2

[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I'm wondering about that myself, but there's no way someone made that many sock puppets. Did it take off over on /r/KotakuInAction ?

0
6

[–] muniea 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Not at all, from what I seen. Maybe it took off with those numptys over on ggrevolt?

0
8

[–] Mandemon 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

Pretty bogus IMO.

0
4

[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Against. I don't think this law should exist, so I'm not particularly enthused about calling for it's enforcement.

Only exception I make to that rule: If the person in question supports that particular law. In that case they can have their just deserts. I haven't seen anything to suggest they do though.

0
2

[–] SwiftLion 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

It's stupid.

0
1

[–] VictorSteinerDavion 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Cut / Paste from the other site (and yes that's my account duh)

__

I think the whole thing is stupid.

No matter how 'problematic' what they are saying is, no one should remove their ability to say it.

The Logan Act is for real traitors and to use it in this context is the same as the dilution of the term rape.

Yes, they are saying stupid shit at the UN. But to use force of law to stop them speaking is the same garbage (and abusive) behavior used to stop Eron from defending himself.

I hold the opinion that no matter how reprehensible their actions have been, they have not broken the law by speaking at the UN and as such no punishment should be sought. Beyond normal discourse and refutation of points (ie: free speech), no action needs to be taken against them, legally or otherwise.

The best thing that can happen is these idiots finally wake up to the fact that they are being used by very dishonest people to make changes in the world that grants even more privilege to already extremely privileged people.

linked comment on other site

0
0

[–] GGsockpuppet 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

If I Logan act can be applied this this then practically any speaker who talked to the UN under really any context is at risk. I take issue with the Logan act if it can be applied so loosely.

0
0

[–] craschnet 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

The only reason I would support it is because at least these two can do some good by supporting 1st amendment rights by making the law unconstitutional. That would be one of the few times I would support Anita and Quinn. And the number of times I can count I would be supporting them, I can do with my dad's left hand that got mauled though a convener belt mail sorter.

load more comments ▼ (7 remaining)