Heather Heying defines "female;" David Sacks on censorship; Michael H. Creswell on the Achievement Gap; Iain Murray on curbing regulation; Ed West on sanctions and consequences
Regarding defining women, KBJ surely misspoke when she said she couldn't do it because she's not a biologist. The trans activists and everyone following along after them do not define women in terms of biology. In fact, they say you're hateful if you try to do so. It might be more in line with them to say that you need a psychologist to define a woman.
‘… It would be possible to create a social media moderation policy that is rooted in First Amendment principles. ‘
That assumes these malefactors wish to do so.
In fact we already have it: English Common Law, whence the 1st Amendment arose. Freedom of speech unless it incites hatred or violence. Simple!
There are 4 tests: 1) Was there an intent to incite? 2) Was the speech capable of incitement? 3) Were those who heard the speech likely to be incited? 4) Was anyone incited?
The problem here for the authoritarian is the burden of proof is on them. If however words, phrases, dissent is considered incitement, the only proof needed is whether the individual actually said the word, phrase or dissented. And the list is not fixed and definitions flexible.
Re: "But no rational person can believe it. It is a lie that everyone lives by. Is there a word for that?"
Charade.
Or, more charitably: An article of faith.
Compare Leszek Kolakowski's definition of Communism: "the regime of organized make-believe" (Main Currents of Marxism, volume III, p. 88).
Regarding defining women, KBJ surely misspoke when she said she couldn't do it because she's not a biologist. The trans activists and everyone following along after them do not define women in terms of biology. In fact, they say you're hateful if you try to do so. It might be more in line with them to say that you need a psychologist to define a woman.
‘… It would be possible to create a social media moderation policy that is rooted in First Amendment principles. ‘
That assumes these malefactors wish to do so.
In fact we already have it: English Common Law, whence the 1st Amendment arose. Freedom of speech unless it incites hatred or violence. Simple!
There are 4 tests: 1) Was there an intent to incite? 2) Was the speech capable of incitement? 3) Were those who heard the speech likely to be incited? 4) Was anyone incited?
The problem here for the authoritarian is the burden of proof is on them. If however words, phrases, dissent is considered incitement, the only proof needed is whether the individual actually said the word, phrase or dissented. And the list is not fixed and definitions flexible.
“transwomen are not women.”
Thanks for the clarification, Heather. And transwomen are not “men” (and transmen not “women.”
OK, but I don’t really see how this helps a lot in figuring out who can use which bathroom, join the army, or participate is which sporting events.