Do you also support terrorists planning and announcing attacks openly? Because that’s what was contained in Amazon’s letter to Parler - 98 instances of real threats against minorities, press, legislators, etc.
Discourse has always had limits of decency, and when that cannot be ensured - the very tool or network becomes a national security concern. Conservatives aren’t the issue - it’s the batshit crazy terrorists that aren’t contained.
I do not support violent threats issued by leftists or rightists. However, I do see leftist terroristic threats given more berth than rightist threats. ("Let's burn that mutherf*er down")
That said other speech that may contain lies and deceit, etc, should be protected free speech. Because, as we know, facts change. Just like Vitamin D & Covid. Oh, now it's okay. Before it was a lie.
My favourite thing was getting sitebanned from Reddit for advocating the use of face masks, especially for high risk populations (ie the elderly or those with pre-existing conditions).
Apparently I was spreading misinformation because WHO said masks don’t help the general public.
> My favourite thing was getting sitebanned from Reddit for advocating the use of face masks
Do you have any evidence of this? There were lots of people advocating masks on r/Coronavirus since January. I've never heard of a site-ban for conduct that doesn't violate Reddit's TOS.
“Why is it that Leftist terroristic threats are given a greater level of leeway versus Rightist threats?”
has a companion question which is equally pertinent:
“Why is it that Rightist violence is met with restrained law enforcement responses versus the heavy handed responses during occasions of Leftist violence?”
Discourse has always had limits of decency, and when that cannot be ensured - the very tool or network becomes a national security concern. Conservatives aren’t the issue - it’s the batshit crazy terrorists that aren’t contained.