What we need to do is justify the individual islands of prohibition, not the ocean of no prohibition. The pockets of light, not the surrounding darkness. /ends - ThreadSky

spinninghugo.bsky.social • 100 days ago

What we need to do is justify the individual islands of prohibition, not the ocean of no prohibition.

The pockets of light, not the surrounding darkness.

/ends

Comments

cyberleagle.bsky.social•100 days ago

Quite so. When you look at a document such as Ofcom’s draft #OnlineSafetyAct risk register you would forgiven for thinking that the opposite is the case.

spinninghugo.bsky.social•100 days ago

"suck dark" not such duck. On phone only excuse.

vjfreeman.bsky.social•100 days ago

I was *very* confused

sticketypooh.bsky.social•100 days ago

I'm disappointed, I was heartily looking forward to finding out how it came back to ducks!

danielincornwall.bsky.social•100 days ago

The light bulbs don't have it all their own way

https://limitedabode.co.uk/products/duck-floor-lamp?srsltid=AfmBOookJ4iUxyeu1M_2EbSt7ALzrJ-m5YZmoreWV_jIOqTUDLcFxxgs

emouseanon.bsky.social•100 days ago

😂

adsquires.bsky.social•100 days ago

I got as far as correctly realizing it was a typo, but then went down a whole different direction...

redneeraj.bsky.social•100 days ago

Looking for the canard, me.

emouseanon.bsky.social•100 days ago

I thought it was a reference to Discworld Bhangbhangduc cuisine - Bang Suck Duck (swede and chips optional)

richardmoorhead.bsky.social•100 days ago

I am a bit disappointed you can't save this by getting it to also be about ducks, although suck dark is a resonant idea

thebrieftweet.bsky.social•100 days ago

I thought it was going to be a reference to that great Sergio Leone cult movie “Duck you Sucker” aka “A Fistful of Dynamite”. Also disappointed.

timoconnorbl.bsky.social•100 days ago

[Kees Moeliker walks away, his hopes dashed.]

mcwyrm.bsky.social•100 days ago

I read the whole thread hoping you'd get around to explaining the duck thing!

michaelpforan.bsky.social•100 days ago

I’ve always understood freedom of speech/expression to be narrowly focused on the expression of opinions and on content restriction on speech/expression based on whether the opinion is objectionable, seditious, blasphemous, offensive etc. that’s more narrow that a theory of all speech surely?

spinninghugo.bsky.social•100 days ago

I don't think even that works. I tend to think it is an unfortunate import from the US because of the first amendment. Even statements of opinion are just a more narrow form of action.

michaelpforan.bsky.social•100 days ago

We’re not referring to speech acts here beyond the act of expressing an opinion I’m assuming? I think you can make general statements about whether law should regulate that as distinct from other kinds of speech.

spinninghugo.bsky.social•100 days ago

Hmmm. I doubt it as currently informed. If I statement of opinion will lead to someone being killed particular considerations apply that don't for other statements of opinion.

I also don't think the discouse is confined like that either.
See:

/1

spinninghugo.bsky.social•100 days ago

The contents page of Tomkins' forthcoming book on the topic.

https://bsky.app/profile/proftomkins.bsky.social

michaelpforan.bsky.social•100 days ago

Yes but there you’re regulating based on the causal relationship with killing not the context of the opinion expressed. I’m not saying you can’t or shouldn’t regulate based on opinion/expression just that it’s perfectly cogent to have that as a line.

spinninghugo.bsky.social•100 days ago

I'm not sure that works. Can;t we say that is true of all action? Movements of human bodies themselves are never alone objectionable, it is the adverse possibe results for others they may result in that we're worried about.

michaelpforan.bsky.social•100 days ago

Content*

michaelpforan.bsky.social•100 days ago

So in my view this isn’t an issue of a general theory of action/speech but of more narrow freedom of expression. It’s entirely plausible to say that law shouldn’t regulate expression of opinion qua opinion. We could obviously also regulate it but it’s possible to delineate expression imo

mwhoyle96.bsky.social•100 days ago

That isn’t the way the US Supreme Court sees it. Lots of cases there concern speech that isn’t opinion including deceit about facts (US v Alvarez), untrue statements of fact (NYT v Sullivan) threatening acts (RAV v City of St Paul) and incitement to commit crimes (Brandenburg v Ohio).

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply