Tor has similar constraints with the design of the TOR service as the US government has with the Constitution. Which I suppose is why you have groups like ANTIFA ready to trade blows and hackers ready to take down sites. You have the right to post the message, but then you have to face the response.
You do not have to face the response, if the response is violence or hacking, because those activities are illegal.
Talking on the internet and organizing legal, peaceful, rallies, is fine in my book.
The US really doesn't care about freedom of speech anymore, which is spreading to the internet, and everyone is giddy to deal the last nail in the coffin.
I don't have the right to punch a Nazi, but the law doesn't stop me from doing so. It may be a deterrent and I may get punished, but the law doesn't create a physically insurmountable barrier.
>You have the right to post the message, but then you have to face the response.
Actually, not being physically assaulted is a right, not the other way around. You can't just go around screaming "VIGILANTE JUSTICE!" just because someone you dislike got the shit beaten out of them, and then defend that by saying "It's my right to make you face the consequences".
By your own logic, somebody could literally torture you for posting this if they disagreed, and it would be okay because you're just facing the consequences.
We are getting tripped up on language here. I don't have the right to punch a Nazi, but the law doesn't stop me from doing so. It may be a deterrent and I may get punished, but the law doesn't create a physically insurmountable barrier.
In other words, you have the right to declare yourself a Nazi, but then you may become a target for people who punch Nazis. That's not an opinion or a belief, this actually happens.
We're also getting tripped up on assumptions. I didn't suggest that I support violence or hacking. I didn't suggest that violence or hacking is justified, let alone a legal right.
I was speculating that shows of resistance which escalate into unlawful action may be a result of groups which feel threatened but see no legal option to oppose that threat (actually, I didn't even say that much).
>We are getting tripped up on language here. I don't have the right to punch a Nazi, but the law doesn't stop me from doing so. It may be a deterrent and I may get punished, but the law doesn't create a physically insurmountable barrier.
Then your statement is literally meaningless.
>In other words, you have the right to declare yourself a Nazi, but then you may become a target for people who punch Nazis.
Yes. Those people are fucking stupid, and telling people they have the right to beat the shit out of people they dislike is also fucking stupid. That logic is so fucked up, it would take several paragraphs to thoroughly explain why it's bad logic.
>We're also getting tripped up on assumptions. I didn't suggest that I support violence or hacking. I didn't suggest that violence or hacking is justified, let alone a legal right.
You literally said people have the right to get the shit kicked out of them, with the implication it's deserved. The actual literal statement you made is an argument used by antifa to attack people they dislike. If you're going to use statements made to defend violence, you need to understand people will assume you support the groups espousing said statements, for the same reason people chanting "Blood and soil" are called Nazis.
