Blog Anonymously

Re:Blog Anonymously by CathedralBorrow on Friday July 10, 2020 @04:25PM (#23796030)

Ok I'm confused so can you please help me? My example was absolutely a "threat" in the sense that yes, I in that example would be serious about voicing my opinion and my intention to not voluntarily do business with that imaginary corporation while they employed that person. I would be "threatening" to do something which is entirely my freedom to do; to vote with my wallet.

But if I understand you correctly, this would be going outside my freedom of speech. Which implies that I do not have the choice to not do business with them. As in, I am obligated to purchase goods and services from them.

I am clearly misunderstanding this because that can't be right. Where did I go off track?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Blog Anonymously by throwaway894345 on Friday July 10, 2020 @04:32PM (#23796109)

Of course you have the choice of whether or not to do business with them. Nevertheless, threats are not free speech.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Blog Anonymously by CathedralBorrow on Friday July 10, 2020 @04:35PM (#23796132)

I'm still confused. I am completely free to choose whether or not to do business with them, but I am not allowed to tell them about my choice? Or am I not allowed to speak about it at all, regardless of who listens?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Blog Anonymously by throwaway894345 on Friday July 10, 2020 @04:53PM (#23796343)

Issuing threats is not free speech. You're still free to choose with whom you do business. Terribly sorry, but I don't know how to make it simpler than that. Good luck in your pursuits.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Blog Anonymously by jaccarmac on Friday July 10, 2020 @06:02PM (#23797070)

Ah yes, and of course whether or not something is a threat depends on intent. And who could be a better judge of intent than ... throwaway894345. Who I'm sure has an incredibly nuanced way of determining intent that doesn't boil down to "SJWs have bad intent".

[ Parent | on HN ]