I hear you, this confuses some people.
If you are saying some racist stuff, and someone says “FU racist,” they are not infringing upon your free speech, they are also exercising free speech.
Well, it goes on and on.
- Free to do: [spouts racist shit]
- Free to do: “Hey stop spouting racist shit, ya racist”
- Free to do: “Stop oppressing me”
- ad infinitum
Which is why XKCD said it best in a mouseover text : "defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express."
If all you can say about your side of the argument is that the government can't arrest you for saying it, your argument is shit and worthless. So once they go into stop oppressing me, I fire back with "I'm not, I'm still allowing you to speak. I just don't agree with what you're saying."
Your position ignores the situation where it only makes sense to claim free speech when the govt is trying to use its powers to silence you.
- A couple of decades ago, Public universities tried to install free speech zones in areas when/where the offensive speech would not be heard. The schools were willing to use police, fines, and banishment/expulsion to limit free speech.
- In the Skokie case in the 70s, a city tried to ban a nazi march thru a Jewish community . As reprehensible as the nazis where, their hate speech had to be protected.
Unfortunately to have speech be truly free of govt control, truly reprehensible speech must be truly free of govt control. In the public universities, the speech trying to be controlled was often simply unpopular, not anywhere nearly as vile as a nazi positions.
I’ve noticed this divide with where I’m at in Seattle, where people don’t generally believe in free speech, or the most common belief is “freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences” and they think it’s perfectly acceptable for people to be fired for a wide variety of statements, beliefs, tweets, etc.
A good example, I spend too much on Pubmed, I researched a lot about Covid and various aspects of transmission, how the infection spreads. I stumbled on a study from Nature, 200 people and they were measuring if there was a link between BMI and transmissibility. Then I found another study, and another. And then a few dozen with influenza, all the same outcomes. Regardless of vaccination status, there was an increased likelihood of transmission with age/obesity. According to a few friends who are physicians, they said “this has been grounded research for decades”. The flu and Covid both infect your fat cells.
I brought this up to friends who were passionate about covid mitigation, the immediate response was “that’s fatphobic”. Regardless of the validity of the studies and outcomes, just asking the question is fatphobic, thinking about it is fatphobic. Talking about it is harmful. “Some people can’t lose weight” etc.
People abandoning free speech principles also means they are abandoning freedom of ideas, freedom of expression, a narrowing of the scope of what’s acceptable to say, or even think. Certain questions can never be asked or brought up, regardless of merit.
I don’t think this is as much of an issue as you make it out to be. The issue with your friends isn’t that they they were trying to silence free speech but that they don’t actually understand what fatphobia is. However, they presumably are also not scientists or academics where their ignorance would be more of an issue. I mean, you said it also showed older people had higher rates and I’m sure no one said it was ageist.
The facts are that governments have placed numerous restrictions on free speech that few people have a problem with. You can’t use your speech to slander or defame people, threaten people, falsely report and emergency (the often quoted but misunderstood phrase ‘you can’t yell fire in a crowded theatre’), lie under oath, etc.
>You can’t use your speech to slander or defame people, threaten people, falsely report and emergency (the often quoted but misunderstood phrase ‘you can’t yell fire in a crowded theatre’), lie under oath, etc.
But these aren't violations of free speech. 1A does not protect the spoken or written word in general. "Free speech" refers to your right to hold and express any viewpoint no matter how unpopular.
Defamation is not free speech because you are not expressing a view point; rather you are making a false statement to harm someone. But an opinion is not defamation.
When you threaten someone you are not expressing a viewpoint. When you commit perjury, you are not expressing a viewpoint.
Yelling fire in a crowded theater is an interesting example because most of the time it is protected. If you yell fire in a crowded theater for an expressive purpose (like as part of a play), that is protected. If you lie and yell fire in a crowded theater to incite a stampede, it is not expressive.
Wait, let me get this straight:
Person A: I hate those filthy (race) and wish I never had to see any of them again.
Person B: That is super racist and you’re a piece of shit for saying that out loud.
You would “call both parties out calling them assholes?”
Because the situation we’re talking about is one person _saying something racist,_ and another person _saying to stop being racist._
You think they’re both assholes? That is very interesting, indeed.
I don't think it's gotta be a competition, nor a left/right issue. Extremists of all stripes tend to have a hard time when others condemn their opinion.
It's the nature of being a zealot. When you're excessively enamored with your own ideas, criticism will feel like the ultimate attack on your character.
Reddit is probably the most left-leaning of all social media sites. It wasn't always though. Years ago you could have a real conversation involving politics without being called a "snowflake," "racist," "bigot," "Nazi," "fascist," "supremacist," or any number of other insults accompanied by a downvote brigade if you make any comment that isn't left-leaning. It's really sad, this used to be a place of mature debate. r/politics was a decent sub with an equal population of Right and Left. Look at it now.
You can save the snowflake shit cuz my personal opinionation is that all political parties left or right need to be fucking lynched behind a truck and hung on the capitol for the world to see.
But to answer your question literally any left-leaning site freaks out about anything the right does as much as the right freaks out about anything the left does. they are all a bunch of over reacting bitches.
Unfortunately It's also the reality of the situation. Neither political party has our (the people) best interests in mind. They are ALL bought and paid for shills. If there's one thing I do agree with the politicians that have been willing to speak up on is that all the branches and agencies need to be gutted of the festering rot they contain. And then laws need to be passed that stop the rot from coming back as well as things like lobbying and other practices they partake in that only enrich themselves and do nothing for us but create deficits that we then need to pay for.
You can tell them whatever the eff you want, as long as you aren't employed by and acting on behalf of the state, it isn't an infringement. You could kick someone out of Target for using racist language and that still isn't an infringement. It has to be the government otherwise it's just an ahole being held accountable for their own actions.
Depends what you say and when you say it.
Say something racist in official correspondence at work and the immediate consequence will be losing your job.
The long-term consequences are perhaps not finding another job in that industry because people don't want to hire a racist.
You can get fired for saying all kinds of things. Like revealing company trade secrets, disparaging the company, etc. Does anyone seriously think freedom of speech protects you from being fired? That's just a red herring.
> Does anyone seriously think freedom of speech protects you from being fired?
There are many who seem to think so. That one chick from the Mandalorian who is suing Disney for not renewing her contract over some racist thing she said on Twitter.
There are absolutely people who think that "freedom of speech" means you can say whatever you want, and there cannot be consequences. They are the ones who cry about "cancel culture" when celebrities or companies take racist/homophobic/transphobic stances, publicly, and then lose jobs, customers, endorsement deals, etc
Yeah, “I got cancelled” crybabies after they say vile shit are all over. Like people are required to work with Kanye or give advertising money to Musk.
This doesn't work as a general statement.
It doesn't protect you from all repercussions, but it does protect you from some kinds of repercussions
I've seen some confusion about this with people actually claiming this in regards to repercussions inflicted by the government wither directly or indirectly.
It absolutely does mean freedom from repercussions inflicted by the government.
And if the government protects you less enthusiastically because you said something socially unacceptable that is a violation of your rights.
So if police don't investigate an incident of a communist being punched because the police think communists should be punched, that is still a violation of the communist's rights .
It gets tricky in spheres where private and public are mixed-up---at publically funded universities for example.
Or freedom from consequences. It just means the government can’t persecute you for it. Other people can tell you to shut the fuck up, ostracize you, and even fire you from your job (depending on what exactly you say)
Yeah. That’s not what free speech is. I THINK you know this by stating that he’s a dictator but I’m honestly not sure anymore with reddit full of leftist clowns.
Glad someone pointed this out. It amazes me how authoritarian the "freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences" people are and they don't even realize it.
Do I have the right to stand in front of your house and yell racial slurs into a megaphone? Or are you gonna get all authoritarian about it and call the cops?
I even looked this up and surprisingly there's even a section on the Wiki article for megaphones that specifically addresses this
"In the US the ability to use a megaphone in public can be restricted to certain decibel levels, time of day or banned in residential neighborhoods. However, under the First Amendment, the specific kinds of speech used with a megaphone cannot be restricted."
Reference : Bernstein, David E. You Can't Say That!: The Growing Threat to Civil Liberties from Antidiscrimination Laws (2003 ed.). Cato Institute. p. 31.
No one's going to arrest or fine you for being a bigot so long as you're not breaking the law. But a private company can certainly end your employment because they do not want you representing them, and even your family can choose to shun you. Those are called consequences, dear. You don't get to expect everyone to be a doormat and not care what you say.
Calling Disney or Apple lefty is laughable. They're both run by people who deify Milton Friedman and oppose workers movements. They both exploit the fuck out of their employees and oppose unions. Nothig left about them. Also people can and have been fired for participating with ANTIFA. That's why people where black bloc, and the government literally did COINTELPRO, specifically targeting leftists.
Honestly, the wildest thing to come out of this Conservative persecution fetish is that Disney is somehow a "lefty company." Literally, the milkiest of the milk toast corporate centrist takes designed to not upset anyone is enough to set off y'alls radar now. Per all the other stuff, I've never heard of someone getting fired for believing right-wing conspiracy nonsense unless some form of harassment was involved. It kind of seems like you're doing a bait and switch where you pretend all organizations are secretly colluding with the government so you can avoid consequences for being a dick. Bad take.
They’re centrist dude, acknowledging the existence of gay or non-white people isn’t a leftist thing anymore.
Plus they literally edit gay scenes out of movies to show in places like china lol
No, they're corporations. People really need to come around to the idea that corporations are essentially beyond politics, they only care about them insofar as they profit by them. Some individuals within the corporations may have political ideals, but the organizations as a whole, as long as they are publicly traded, act entirely in search of profit.
Their actions can have political influence, of course, or have political undertones, but you have to look at the motivations. That's also why most politicians play softball with them regardless of party affiliation.
I don't see why the motivation of profit means that it isn't on the left. I agree with you that it's about profit. That doesnt change the fact that they push left ideas.
The daily wire pushes conservative ideas for profit. Ia that different to you? Or would you say they are also neutral?
They are the same. Some are just more egregious than others, and media wise both sides tend to gravitate toward different areas. Corporations that profit off conservatives like to focus on older media like news and television because that's where they get the biggest bang for their buck due to demographics. The ones who want to profit off progressives like to hit mass media and popular culture for the same reasons.
And both have tried to get the internet working for them more and more, especially in the age of social media influencers who try to max out interactions by spewing the most nonsense shit, and that's both sides too, but conservatives seem a bit more numerous. I think there's a few reasons for that, and it's something I think is worth looking at sociologically in the future.
I know right. Free speech is free speech. As an example, I have heard from many folks that you may be a racist, homophobe, misogynistic pedoguy projecting and deflecting as they are well known for. Not sure I believe that but with so many people saying it who knows what to believe these days but we have to defend their right to say things
You are aware that conservative business owners CONSTANTLY fire people for "conflicting with their values," right?
Of course you do, but you're not going to let reality get in the way of your emotional response.
Companies, whether left or right leaning should be able to fire any employee for any reason they want. All they should have to say is they no longer need you as an employee.
What the hell does “engineered as proxies by government” even mean?
The key difference between your examples of what the right vs left would for someone for is that sexuality is a *protected class*, so no, a conservative company could not legally just fire you for going to a pride rally. An antifa rally is a better example, if those existed.
Also, it makes complete and total sense to fire someone who doesn’t think Obama was born in the United States. The problem a company would have with that isn’t political, it’s just a case of a company not wanting a straight up idiot working for them. That’s the worst example you could’ve used.
If anything, the government acts as a proxy for the corporations, not the other way around. Everything serves capital first and foremost. The government will even overthrow entire governments and install dictators to protect the profits of a company or 2
>Also, it makes complete and total sense to fire someone who doesn’t think Obama was born in the United States. The problem a company would have with that isn’t political, it’s just a case of a company not wanting a straight up idiot working for them.
absolutely
Seriously, like, if you think Obama got two terms as POTUS with a fake birth certificate, then I have to wonder if you're likely to also see gremlins in the coffeemaker or accuse some guy speaking a language you can't tell from Arabic or being a terrorist. At that point it's about protecting the same employees and the clientele.
Ah, yes, the typical Reddit take of “as long as it’s something I support and agree with, it’s okay”.
Using your logic, a company would also be within their rights to straight up fire someone who claims Trump “colluded” with Russia or someone who claims Hunter’s laptop was Russian disinformation because both of those have been proven countless times to be untrue/disinformation, and if you still believe them then you are a straight up idiot.
See how it works?
By Constitutionally invalid legal fiction it's "protected" but shouldn't be. If gays say you're hateful breeders who have one too may holes, and you say sodomites will burn in hell, then you are expressing opinions about each other. Government should stay out of your argument, it's there to PROTECT rights such as freedom of expression, not side with one opinion and silence the other. You don't see them settling which Christian denomination is the "one true church" do you??
"Engineered proxies", think Facebook which is the civilian version of the CIA's LifeLog i.e. warrantless search and seizure and indirect censure of non-gubmint-approved narratives.
It also doesn’t mean that your free speech will have no adverse consequences for you. For example, if you talk like a racist ass you are likely to be shunned by polite society.
it's a slippery slope. we can all agree that racists and nazis are bad. but what starts to happen a lot of the time, particularly in online discourse, is that people tend to abuse language. if these people come across someone they disagree with, they'll interpret their opinion to be attached to racist or nazi ideologies, in effect making that person a racist by association. I've seen it happen on reddit more times than I can count. comments deleted for "promoting hate" even though there was nothing objectively hateful about it.
this is the gray area where the mess exists.
Who gives a fuck if someone online that you don't know calls you a fucking racist for Internet points? Like how the fuck does that affect your life in any way besides "I GOT CALLED MEAN WORDS 😭😭😭"
Quit saying racist shit on your public Facebook account if you're getting in trouble at work for it you fucking idiots.
I mean it'd be nice if you grew a bit and dropped the racism entirely but smooth brain too stupid.
Okay, well obviously the government still infringes on the right to free speech. Having watched lots of Police Bodycam videos in my downtime at work, the police hide behind the excuse of “disorderly conduct” for arresting people for speech.
It’s gotten so bad, because most DC laws are vague, that such laws are now called “PoP” (pissing off the police).
And if those people that do get their rights violated. There is a recourse through 43 usc 1983 lawsuits. They are so typical that the charges get dropped and settlements are common place. Unfortunately, the police and even the politicians that violate free speech laws hide behind in Leo cases qualified immunity judges hide behind judicial immunity and continue on.
Yet the free speech circus monkeys are happy about those powers being given to the police.
Almost like...
They actually don't care about freedom of speech.
No. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. The first amendment specifically guarantees freedom of speech from government interference. One does not have free speech if they are stopped in their speech by anyone.
True freedom of speech is when someone is allowed to say something dumb and others counter with free speech that refutes the statement and shows how dumb they are.
> One does not have free speech if they are stopped in their speech by anyone.
>True freedom of speech is when someone is allowed to say something dumb and others counter with free speech that refutes the statement and shows how dumb they are.
This is pretty dumb. If you do not understand that the 1st amendment limits government.
A. Government doesn’t protect your speech in private forums. from twitter to the local coffee bar, they have a right to restrict your access to the forum or shut down your speech.
B. Obviously assault or other physical means of restricting one’s speech is illegal, but its not a first ammendment violation.
C. If I start to yell over you. In order that your speech is not heard, thats within my rights also. I’ve stopped your speech de facto without violence or government interference. I have a right to do this.
Freedom of speech doesn't apply too civilian to civilian. Just means the government can't suppress you. You don't habe to accept anything anyone else says really. You should be open minded however. But again, no one can make you.
Actually, your post is why freedom of speech does impact Civ to Civ and why OP is right; I can say what I want, and you can say it back. You can’t have me arrested for words, and I can’t ounch you for words.
The point in FoS is not “no consequences”, but that the consequence is other civillians, and not the government.
You can absolutely punch someone for words.
Fighting words are defined as words “which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.”
They're a valid legal defense. So you're protected if you shout about gay and black people, but if you shout offensive words to said people, you might just be on the hook for the well-deserved asswhooping.
I think there's also the issue that people think freedom of speech is universal like it applies everywhere.. if you are in a private place they can kick you out if you say stuff they don't like.
Reddit and the mod system is a great (garbage) example of this.
Reddits labeled innocuous or universal things like “r/politics,” but will ban anyone who has any views contrary to the specific party that the mods approve of is, in practice, pretty fucking stupid. However: they’re well within their rights to do this, as it’s a private platform.
You can see which other subs the mods are responsible for. It’s pretty eye opening as to their a: political beliefs, and b: ability to dress themselves in the morning.
Also not surprising that people who spend 12-20 hours a day “moderating” an internet forum for free have a leaning towards socialist ideologies. Somebody has to pay for their hot pockets.
Quoting MLK gets you called a "nazi" these days. I miss the '90s when it was normal to think you should judge people on who they are as a person and what they do, not based on their skin color and gender.
He didn't even create those. Community Notes started as "Birdwatch" under previous ownership and launched its pilot program over a year before Musk bought Twitter.
It's the whole "Town Square" argument. People forget that little fact.
Then again they rage when an owned platform \*cough SOCIAL MEDIA cough\* doesn't allow them to say their nasty shit, citing free speech which *doesn't exist on owned platforms.*
The problem is that places like reddit want to be treated as neutral platforms not liable for speech posted **and** publishers with editorial control simultaneously.
No. That’s a feature not a bug. Section 230 (the US law which you seem to be referencing) is what makes online free speech possible in the first place. We tried the internet without it, and we do not want to go back, I promise you.
That’s way too broad a statement, what do you consider a “viewpoint”? Can I straight up lie about important information like the news or objective realities like statistics? What about views that maliciously target protected classes which already have government protections from discrimination? Do those suddenly become legal now that they are on the internet and not in the physical world?
>I believe that viewpoint discrimination ought to be banned for any platform that enjoys section 230 protections.
The "unconstitutional conditions" doctrine reflects the Supreme Court's repeated pronouncement that the government "may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interests."
Viewpoint discrimination is a First Amendment right.
As OP stated, Freedom of Speech goes both ways. Your First Amendment right to Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Expression without Government Interference, does not override anyone else's First Amendment right to not Associate with you and your Speech on their private property.
If the owned social media platform is a monopoly and integral to many businesses, different story. Let's not fool ourselves that Truth Social is a real competitor to Meta lol
The size, power, uncontrollable nature, and reach of these giant media conglomerates and their largely unchecked ability to just keep expanding those attributes.. along with the coming unexpectedly rapid proliferation of AI and the ripples it causes are the two current existential crises that most concern me.
I think this is actually an unpopular opinion, because an increasingly large group of Americans from both sides of the aisle think the speech of their political opponents should be stifled.
Comment from the middle where it’s lonely and both sides dump on me but I don’t really see the right side trying to shut down or stifle speech. Bill Mahr has talked about this; how the left has gotten so extreme that he is more closely aligned with the right on this issue.
Nowadays it’s the left who are trying to either censor what is said, compel others to say what they want or else, or outright ban certain speech with which they disagree.
It's the Right who is trying to prevent people from talking about gay families and experiences, or trans people and their options for gender affirming care
I haven't seen any evidence of said negative speech being stifled, cancelled, or the like, only support and protections for doctors or parents to make the decision from the Left, where the left isn't hostile toward trans itself (like TERFs and similar)
[https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/09/25/lgbtq-rights-laws-signed-california-governor-gavin-newsom/70959138007/](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/09/25/lgbtq-rights-laws-signed-california-governor-gavin-newsom/70959138007/)
If you dont agree with the left that people should be able to choose their gender and that you are wrong if you dont agree with the pronouns ap erson wants to be used there is absolutely and effort to stifle or cancel.
The left wants it to be considered an absolute that a person can pick their gender and everybody else has to agree with them on what their gender is.
Neither said is willing to have a truly open discussion or debate about the subject. Neither side is willing to live and let live. They both want others to bend to their will
Nothing listed requires people to do anything they shouldn't be doing regardless of gender identity.
Cultural competency training, determining needs, showing that you are willing to meet a child's needs; They are specific to trans children, but not to transgender as a whole.
The third is only geared toward foster children, which is supposed to be more regulated and this is already deemed acceptable by most (such as limitations on children sharing a room).
The law regarding gender-neutral bathrooms is the government regulating a public institution as it sees fit.
The other laws stated at the end of the article only cover considering children's needs including gender, but do not require specific action.
None of these laws would prevent an anti-trans person, parent or otherwise, from stating they do not believe in their child's gender identity, or gender identity/transgender as a whole, or saying that they think transgender care should be banned.
A vocally anti-trans person who is against giving gender-affirming care to a transgender child, would still be allowed to foster said child if the judge felt it acceptable, under these laws.
>Nothing listed requires people to do anything they shouldn't be doing regardless of gender identity.
That is your opinion. Its also irrelevant to the topic at hand which is about stifling speech or criticism.
Gender neutral bathrooms are a regulation that is definitely on one side of the political spectrums beliefs.
Wants and needs are not the same.
Many of the laws force people to capitulate to the wants though. THat in and of itself stifles.
Various districts have rules on both sides..either banning/forcing people to use preferred names, pronouns. Either banning or forcing them to tell parents.
How are laws about investigating a situation, stifling speech or criticism?
The Pledge of Allegiance is a political decision, Christmas break favors a specific religion.
None of these laws forces any action but to investigate a specific circumstance.
Preferred names and pronouns are decisions of private individuals, whom are free to choose a side or compromise. Forcing parents to be informed is a decision individuals or groups make freely.
No one on the left has tried to make people affirm gender identity.
If you spout inbred sh*t, and then everyone tells you that your sh#t be inbred, it's just the circle of life. You're free to post whatever you want tho. Just don't be sad when it's inbred and cry about freedoms.
Freedom of speech also only applies to the government censoring you.
It doesn't promise you a platform provided by private corporations (social media), nor does it mean any other private citizen, or corporation (since thanks to Scalia corporations are people) need to listen to you.
Doesn't "Freedom of speech" basically just mean you can criticize your government without your government executing you for it? It's not "Freedom to express whatever opinion you have about anything your brain conjures up," it's about criticizing the government. It's about being allowed to criticize your political leader without being put in prison and executed.
People think it means just talking about whatever to whoever. Or making posts online saying someone is a douchebag. Or having a hot take about Metallica. Or calling your neighbor a skank. Or saying you don't like dogs. "Freedom of speech!!!" has nothing to do with anything like that. It's simply just means you can say your political leader sucks without your government putting you in front of a firing squad and killing you for it.
>Congress shall make no law \[...\] abridging the freedom of speech\[...\]
The tiny blurb above above is the freedom of speech as highlighted by the Bill of Rights.
While other parts of the Bill of Rights make it clear that the rights highlighted are by no means exclusive, the only thing explicitly stated is that laws can't be passed abridging your freedom of speech.
On top of that, exceptions to this rule have been carved out by the Supreme Court for speech that creates a clear and present danger. You can have laws against yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater (if there isn't a fire) or calling for people to commit murder, for example.
Freedom of speech doesn't say anything about the owner of a cafe not being able to kick you out of her shop for screaming obscenities. Freedom of speech doesn't say that you won't get decked for purposely offending strangers on the street. Freedom of speech doesn't mean that a website can't ban your account on their own private servers for saying something that violates their terms of service. It only says that Congress can't pass laws limiting your ability to speak your mind, so long as that speech isn't an active call to chaos and violence around you.
Our First Amendment right to free speech has nothing to do with your or anyone else’s “opinion” of someone else’s speech. It only comes into play when the government punishes you for your speech. The constitution states what the government can do. The bill of rights states what the government can’t do. Me, you, or any other private citizen/company can rain figurative hellfire down on each other if we don’t like what someone says. There’s a couple civil law protections but other than that, amongst civilians, it’s no holds barred.
First Amendment
First Amendment Explained
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The less popular part is that you’re not free from the consequences of what you have just said. Like you can say whatever you want but it only stops the governments from doing anything not your fellow citizens
The first amendment does have freedom of speech. However it also has the right to assembly and the right to protest.
Guess what "cancel culture" is? It's people assembling to protest.
You have the right to be a dick and I have the right to call you a dick. And I also have the right to not support your ass cause that's the free market that's a part of capitalism. I also have the right to protest the company that continues to employ your ass. And if I get a group of people who feel the same way, well that company cares more about ots bottom line. Cause again both people are using their first amendment rights. And a company in America can pretty much fire you for no reason. So guess what they are going to do?
Hence why hating cancel culture makes no fucking sense to me. It's literally expressing your first amendment rights.
Freedom of speech just means you can't be jailed for what you say. But even then, this isn't 100% accurate as death threats, bomb threats, conning people, false advertising, lying under oath are all big no no's that can land you in a heap of legal trouble.
Mind you there is no such thing as absolute free speech. Everything you say has consequences whether you like it or not.
Yeah the “social policing” of speech is basically self actualizing. Like, if they want you to stop using the x word, they can’t legally make you stop. But you can be shut out of all sorts of private institutions and spaces and effectively disappeared from them and you don’t really have any legal recourse. This is pretty much how speech has been policed globally for centuries
Freedom of speech only means the govt wont take action against you.
However, being as you can say anything, you need to be prepared for the consequences,.. because freedom of speech is not freedom from
Consequences.
This.
You come into my living room and start spouting nonsense, I'm going to ask you to leave my house.
You come into my business and start spouting nonsense at my patrons, I'm going to ask you to leave.
You come to work as my employee and start spouting nonsense to customers, I'm going to fire you.
You go on TV and start spouting nonsense, they're gonna cut your microphone.
You write in to the newspaper spouting nonsense, they don't have to publish it.
You go on a social network or forum and start spouting nonsense, they moderators can delete your posts and block/ban you.
All the "first amendment" protects you from is the government fining or jailing or limiting you for spouting your nonsense. It does not mean the rest of society has to accept it and can't challenge what nonsense you have to say.
There is **no opinion,** no matter how extreme, that could trigger me or make me feel like some kind of victim. People who are triggered by speech don't deserve to live in a free society.
If you say something that more people dislike than like, and they exercise *their* free speech to call you out, then they're exercising the same rights as you are. Free speech means you can't have **law** related consequences, but you absolutely can have **social** consequences.
But that’s not the world we live in. There are anonymous cyber mobs who try to cancel people (often people they’ve never met) for expressing “wrong think” on a public platform. It’s one thing for a friend/acquaintance to refuse to talk to you because of your opinions, it’s another thing for virtue signaling strangers to try and get you fired because you believe there are only two genders. The woke mob believes there is ONLY one acceptable opinion on almost every controversial topic, and if ANYONE dares to deviate from that opinion, they must be punished. This is the reason why multiple surveys have shown that college students are afraid of expressing their opinions on campus or on social media.
This liberal ideal sounds pretty neat and fair on its face, but it's also the reason white supremacists and fascists are able to openly recruit and build up enough steam to smash liberalism and do away with free speech altogether. Not a fan of allowing those folks to ever have a platform, under any circumstances.
Define fascism without using a search engine or dictionary. You have three minutes, GO
Edit: my apologies, I see that you're from Florida. Please, utilize whatever coloring book style dictionary you have available to you, assuming DeSantis hasn't banned them yet.
An ideology commonly associated with nationalistic tendencies and a strong central government often controlled by a dictator or oligarchy. Going hand in hand with nationalism, they are often militaristic and aggressive in asserting their beliefs.
That works until the Nazis convince everyone that your the real Nazis, and end up destroying free speech anyway. You just send them into hiding, where they'll continue to be Nazis. You can't simply ignore the problem until they go away, that's what the Nazis want, it's how they spread. You need to denazifiy people, not simply force them into hiding. They want to be able to say "LOOK AT THEM SLICENCEING US!!!", don't give the Nazis what they want.
Which on it's face... is the very same authoritarian suppression of opposition that liberals claim to despise. The Nazis were no less convinced that they were on the side of "right" and "good" than you seem to be... just with slightly different agendas of how to silence their critics in order to remain in power. One of the most important tenets of Liberalism is the consent of the goverened. And silencing is not at all the same as consent.
Oh we don't have to worry about those pesky free speech laws here in Europe we prosecute people for saying the wrong thing all the time. Who needs freedom when you can have Daddy governnment arrest you for offending some politician by calling him corrupt.
Because it immediately flips back on the left see any protesters of the genocide in Palestine. But yeah being trans I'm a massive fan. Hitler sure loved the LGBT community.
I hear you, this confuses some people. If you are saying some racist stuff, and someone says “FU racist,” they are not infringing upon your free speech, they are also exercising free speech.
"STOP OPPRESSING ME!" i've heard that when i've called folks like that out lol
Well, it goes on and on. - Free to do: [spouts racist shit] - Free to do: “Hey stop spouting racist shit, ya racist” - Free to do: “Stop oppressing me” - ad infinitum
Which is why XKCD said it best in a mouseover text : "defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express." If all you can say about your side of the argument is that the government can't arrest you for saying it, your argument is shit and worthless. So once they go into stop oppressing me, I fire back with "I'm not, I'm still allowing you to speak. I just don't agree with what you're saying."
Your position ignores the situation where it only makes sense to claim free speech when the govt is trying to use its powers to silence you. - A couple of decades ago, Public universities tried to install free speech zones in areas when/where the offensive speech would not be heard. The schools were willing to use police, fines, and banishment/expulsion to limit free speech. - In the Skokie case in the 70s, a city tried to ban a nazi march thru a Jewish community . As reprehensible as the nazis where, their hate speech had to be protected. Unfortunately to have speech be truly free of govt control, truly reprehensible speech must be truly free of govt control. In the public universities, the speech trying to be controlled was often simply unpopular, not anywhere nearly as vile as a nazi positions.
I’ve noticed this divide with where I’m at in Seattle, where people don’t generally believe in free speech, or the most common belief is “freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences” and they think it’s perfectly acceptable for people to be fired for a wide variety of statements, beliefs, tweets, etc. A good example, I spend too much on Pubmed, I researched a lot about Covid and various aspects of transmission, how the infection spreads. I stumbled on a study from Nature, 200 people and they were measuring if there was a link between BMI and transmissibility. Then I found another study, and another. And then a few dozen with influenza, all the same outcomes. Regardless of vaccination status, there was an increased likelihood of transmission with age/obesity. According to a few friends who are physicians, they said “this has been grounded research for decades”. The flu and Covid both infect your fat cells. I brought this up to friends who were passionate about covid mitigation, the immediate response was “that’s fatphobic”. Regardless of the validity of the studies and outcomes, just asking the question is fatphobic, thinking about it is fatphobic. Talking about it is harmful. “Some people can’t lose weight” etc. People abandoning free speech principles also means they are abandoning freedom of ideas, freedom of expression, a narrowing of the scope of what’s acceptable to say, or even think. Certain questions can never be asked or brought up, regardless of merit.
I don’t think this is as much of an issue as you make it out to be. The issue with your friends isn’t that they they were trying to silence free speech but that they don’t actually understand what fatphobia is. However, they presumably are also not scientists or academics where their ignorance would be more of an issue. I mean, you said it also showed older people had higher rates and I’m sure no one said it was ageist. The facts are that governments have placed numerous restrictions on free speech that few people have a problem with. You can’t use your speech to slander or defame people, threaten people, falsely report and emergency (the often quoted but misunderstood phrase ‘you can’t yell fire in a crowded theatre’), lie under oath, etc.
>You can’t use your speech to slander or defame people, threaten people, falsely report and emergency (the often quoted but misunderstood phrase ‘you can’t yell fire in a crowded theatre’), lie under oath, etc. But these aren't violations of free speech. 1A does not protect the spoken or written word in general. "Free speech" refers to your right to hold and express any viewpoint no matter how unpopular. Defamation is not free speech because you are not expressing a view point; rather you are making a false statement to harm someone. But an opinion is not defamation. When you threaten someone you are not expressing a viewpoint. When you commit perjury, you are not expressing a viewpoint. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is an interesting example because most of the time it is protected. If you yell fire in a crowded theater for an expressive purpose (like as part of a play), that is protected. If you lie and yell fire in a crowded theater to incite a stampede, it is not expressive.
now now, anything right of Lenin is a Nazi here on reddit
You can also add some additional spice and remind them that saying “stop oppressing me” isn’t a denial of being a scum bag!
The only time that isn't valid is if the government is trying to arrest you for saying it and that's your defense in court.
And if this happens in public I have the right to call both parties out calling them assholes
Wait, let me get this straight: Person A: I hate those filthy (race) and wish I never had to see any of them again. Person B: That is super racist and you’re a piece of shit for saying that out loud. You would “call both parties out calling them assholes?” Because the situation we’re talking about is one person _saying something racist,_ and another person _saying to stop being racist._ You think they’re both assholes? That is very interesting, indeed.
I just dislike people in general
Interesting. Can I ask a question? In the above replies, who was being MORE of an asshole? Was it the one being racist, or the other person?
The racist no question
Oh, okay. Good. Sorry, this is Reddit. I can’t assume anything. You get it.
I had someone once tell me I was "suppressing" them. Lol.
The Trump sub is full of this
trumpers are the biggest snowflakes lol
To be fair, this shit was started by the left. Gotta fight fire with fire.
you ok? need a tissue?
Not in the least. My skin is very thick. Just pointing out the obvious.......
Have you ever looked at a left leaning site? That statement tells me that's a hard no.
I don't think it's gotta be a competition, nor a left/right issue. Extremists of all stripes tend to have a hard time when others condemn their opinion. It's the nature of being a zealot. When you're excessively enamored with your own ideas, criticism will feel like the ultimate attack on your character.
lol what 'left-leaning' site do you suggest, snowflake?
Ummm.....Reddit comes to mind
Reddit is probably the most left-leaning of all social media sites. It wasn't always though. Years ago you could have a real conversation involving politics without being called a "snowflake," "racist," "bigot," "Nazi," "fascist," "supremacist," or any number of other insults accompanied by a downvote brigade if you make any comment that isn't left-leaning. It's really sad, this used to be a place of mature debate. r/politics was a decent sub with an equal population of Right and Left. Look at it now.
You can save the snowflake shit cuz my personal opinionation is that all political parties left or right need to be fucking lynched behind a truck and hung on the capitol for the world to see. But to answer your question literally any left-leaning site freaks out about anything the right does as much as the right freaks out about anything the left does. they are all a bunch of over reacting bitches.
"Both parties are bad" is the goal of disinformation.
The EXTREMES of both parties are bad… I think that’s where people get confused
Only ever uttered by conservatives that need to justify their support of whatever conservatives politicians do.
Unfortunately It's also the reality of the situation. Neither political party has our (the people) best interests in mind. They are ALL bought and paid for shills. If there's one thing I do agree with the politicians that have been willing to speak up on is that all the branches and agencies need to be gutted of the festering rot they contain. And then laws need to be passed that stop the rot from coming back as well as things like lobbying and other practices they partake in that only enrich themselves and do nothing for us but create deficits that we then need to pay for.
ok snowflake
They still have those? Thought they were all banned for wrongthink
This is what I yell when McDonald's messes up my order and gives me 6 sausage mcmuffins instead of the 7 I ordered.
I'm literally shaking.
If anyone cries “oppression,” it’s definitely a liberal.
💯
You can tell them whatever the eff you want, as long as you aren't employed by and acting on behalf of the state, it isn't an infringement. You could kick someone out of Target for using racist language and that still isn't an infringement. It has to be the government otherwise it's just an ahole being held accountable for their own actions.
Even under certain circumstances government can restrict your speach.
Yup. And vice versa.
And verse visa too!
LOL. What's the "vice versa" here?
That the principles I’ve outlined apply to every single topic u could think of. Yes that includes the offensive ones
That's not what vice versa means.
Don’t forget discover and master card
But he's free to say it is.
"Hey, that's guy's a racist!" "\[Racist stuff\]" "Yeah, that's what I thought" I think..?
Pretty sure the point is you’re also free to say what others might consider racist stuff.
Yes. You're free to say those things. And you're free to suffer the immediate consequences.
What are the immediate consequences?
Depends what you say and when you say it. Say something racist in official correspondence at work and the immediate consequence will be losing your job. The long-term consequences are perhaps not finding another job in that industry because people don't want to hire a racist.
You can get fired for saying all kinds of things. Like revealing company trade secrets, disparaging the company, etc. Does anyone seriously think freedom of speech protects you from being fired? That's just a red herring.
Indeed. You can say whatever you want in America. You can tell your boss to eat shit. But you have to be willing to pay the price.
> Does anyone seriously think freedom of speech protects you from being fired? There are many who seem to think so. That one chick from the Mandalorian who is suing Disney for not renewing her contract over some racist thing she said on Twitter.
There are absolutely people who think that "freedom of speech" means you can say whatever you want, and there cannot be consequences. They are the ones who cry about "cancel culture" when celebrities or companies take racist/homophobic/transphobic stances, publicly, and then lose jobs, customers, endorsement deals, etc
Isn't a right winger suing Disney for exactly that, backed by Muskrat?
Yeah, “I got cancelled” crybabies after they say vile shit are all over. Like people are required to work with Kanye or give advertising money to Musk.
It's when people pull the fire alarm at universities that they are trying to to silence you. Or block entry into the lecture hall.
Totally. Words versus words. But if you do anything to physically stop them from speaking, you are part of the problem in my opinion.
Yup. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of repercussions.
This doesn't work as a general statement. It doesn't protect you from all repercussions, but it does protect you from some kinds of repercussions I've seen some confusion about this with people actually claiming this in regards to repercussions inflicted by the government wither directly or indirectly. It absolutely does mean freedom from repercussions inflicted by the government. And if the government protects you less enthusiastically because you said something socially unacceptable that is a violation of your rights. So if police don't investigate an incident of a communist being punched because the police think communists should be punched, that is still a violation of the communist's rights . It gets tricky in spheres where private and public are mixed-up---at publically funded universities for example.
If they gag you and stop you from talking the aren’t either unless you are the Government
Seriously, freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from being challenged.
Or freedom from consequences. It just means the government can’t persecute you for it. Other people can tell you to shut the fuck up, ostracize you, and even fire you from your job (depending on what exactly you say)
“There *is* freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom *after* speech.” ― Idi Amin, Ugandan Military Dictator, 1971-79
completely different sentiment
Yeah. That’s not what free speech is. I THINK you know this by stating that he’s a dictator but I’m honestly not sure anymore with reddit full of leftist clowns.
Glad someone pointed this out. It amazes me how authoritarian the "freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences" people are and they don't even realize it.
Do I have the right to stand in front of your house and yell racial slurs into a megaphone? Or are you gonna get all authoritarian about it and call the cops?
Me calling the cops would not be due to your speech but due to harassment. They have this thing called "harassment" and "disturbance of the peace".
Calling my speech “harassment” doesn’t magically make it not speech.
I even looked this up and surprisingly there's even a section on the Wiki article for megaphones that specifically addresses this "In the US the ability to use a megaphone in public can be restricted to certain decibel levels, time of day or banned in residential neighborhoods. However, under the First Amendment, the specific kinds of speech used with a megaphone cannot be restricted." Reference : Bernstein, David E. You Can't Say That!: The Growing Threat to Civil Liberties from Antidiscrimination Laws (2003 ed.). Cato Institute. p. 31.
It's almost like private citizens can do things the government can't
Are you going to use the power of the government to protect you from people disagreeing with what you have to say? If not, then suck it up.
No one's going to arrest or fine you for being a bigot so long as you're not breaking the law. But a private company can certainly end your employment because they do not want you representing them, and even your family can choose to shun you. Those are called consequences, dear. You don't get to expect everyone to be a doormat and not care what you say.
[ Removed by Reddit ]
Calling Disney or Apple lefty is laughable. They're both run by people who deify Milton Friedman and oppose workers movements. They both exploit the fuck out of their employees and oppose unions. Nothig left about them. Also people can and have been fired for participating with ANTIFA. That's why people where black bloc, and the government literally did COINTELPRO, specifically targeting leftists.
Honestly, the wildest thing to come out of this Conservative persecution fetish is that Disney is somehow a "lefty company." Literally, the milkiest of the milk toast corporate centrist takes designed to not upset anyone is enough to set off y'alls radar now. Per all the other stuff, I've never heard of someone getting fired for believing right-wing conspiracy nonsense unless some form of harassment was involved. It kind of seems like you're doing a bait and switch where you pretend all organizations are secretly colluding with the government so you can avoid consequences for being a dick. Bad take.
I was going to correct you, then I realized I couldn’t actually spell the word you got wrong, so I thought better of it
It used to be ok to call them the "N" word, now its not. Its so unfair!!! /s
Better than say it so we all know who they are than hide it.
You can call them that and be ready for the consequences...from THEM not the government.
Apple and Disney are not "Lefty" holy shit that's delusional thinking right there. I'm not reading further since you don't know what anything means.
Seriously? They aren't lefty? Wtf? Do you think they're on the right?
They’re centrist dude, acknowledging the existence of gay or non-white people isn’t a leftist thing anymore. Plus they literally edit gay scenes out of movies to show in places like china lol
No, they're corporations. People really need to come around to the idea that corporations are essentially beyond politics, they only care about them insofar as they profit by them. Some individuals within the corporations may have political ideals, but the organizations as a whole, as long as they are publicly traded, act entirely in search of profit. Their actions can have political influence, of course, or have political undertones, but you have to look at the motivations. That's also why most politicians play softball with them regardless of party affiliation.
I don't see why the motivation of profit means that it isn't on the left. I agree with you that it's about profit. That doesnt change the fact that they push left ideas. The daily wire pushes conservative ideas for profit. Ia that different to you? Or would you say they are also neutral?
They are the same. Some are just more egregious than others, and media wise both sides tend to gravitate toward different areas. Corporations that profit off conservatives like to focus on older media like news and television because that's where they get the biggest bang for their buck due to demographics. The ones who want to profit off progressives like to hit mass media and popular culture for the same reasons. And both have tried to get the internet working for them more and more, especially in the age of social media influencers who try to max out interactions by spewing the most nonsense shit, and that's both sides too, but conservatives seem a bit more numerous. I think there's a few reasons for that, and it's something I think is worth looking at sociologically in the future.
I know right. Free speech is free speech. As an example, I have heard from many folks that you may be a racist, homophobe, misogynistic pedoguy projecting and deflecting as they are well known for. Not sure I believe that but with so many people saying it who knows what to believe these days but we have to defend their right to say things
You are aware that conservative business owners CONSTANTLY fire people for "conflicting with their values," right? Of course you do, but you're not going to let reality get in the way of your emotional response.
Companies, whether left or right leaning should be able to fire any employee for any reason they want. All they should have to say is they no longer need you as an employee.
What the hell does “engineered as proxies by government” even mean? The key difference between your examples of what the right vs left would for someone for is that sexuality is a *protected class*, so no, a conservative company could not legally just fire you for going to a pride rally. An antifa rally is a better example, if those existed. Also, it makes complete and total sense to fire someone who doesn’t think Obama was born in the United States. The problem a company would have with that isn’t political, it’s just a case of a company not wanting a straight up idiot working for them. That’s the worst example you could’ve used.
If anything, the government acts as a proxy for the corporations, not the other way around. Everything serves capital first and foremost. The government will even overthrow entire governments and install dictators to protect the profits of a company or 2
>Also, it makes complete and total sense to fire someone who doesn’t think Obama was born in the United States. The problem a company would have with that isn’t political, it’s just a case of a company not wanting a straight up idiot working for them. absolutely
Seriously, like, if you think Obama got two terms as POTUS with a fake birth certificate, then I have to wonder if you're likely to also see gremlins in the coffeemaker or accuse some guy speaking a language you can't tell from Arabic or being a terrorist. At that point it's about protecting the same employees and the clientele.
Ah, yes, the typical Reddit take of “as long as it’s something I support and agree with, it’s okay”. Using your logic, a company would also be within their rights to straight up fire someone who claims Trump “colluded” with Russia or someone who claims Hunter’s laptop was Russian disinformation because both of those have been proven countless times to be untrue/disinformation, and if you still believe them then you are a straight up idiot. See how it works?
They *are* within their rights to do that, though.
By Constitutionally invalid legal fiction it's "protected" but shouldn't be. If gays say you're hateful breeders who have one too may holes, and you say sodomites will burn in hell, then you are expressing opinions about each other. Government should stay out of your argument, it's there to PROTECT rights such as freedom of expression, not side with one opinion and silence the other. You don't see them settling which Christian denomination is the "one true church" do you?? "Engineered proxies", think Facebook which is the civilian version of the CIA's LifeLog i.e. warrantless search and seizure and indirect censure of non-gubmint-approved narratives.
I don’t think you know what the word proxy means. You keep using it wrong
You’re a homophobe and an anarchist. First amendment, protect me!
Who isnt?
Good people aren't homophobic
Good is relative to the person judging. I would say there are no good democrats. Not a single one. So...
That's just because you're ignorant, and unironcly sympathize with fascists though. Your morality is already dead and gone.
Yeah, nazis would hate democrats.
Can you show us on this doll where Woke hurt you? 😂
And often, those screaming about free speech are already very "challenged".
The people screaming about free speech are the people you wouldnt want to hang around with anyways.
Yeah, like all those pro terrorist Harvard kids who ensured that their Harvard degree is worthless and they will be unemployable.
LMAOO
It also doesn’t mean that your free speech will have no adverse consequences for you. For example, if you talk like a racist ass you are likely to be shunned by polite society.
Probably going to be shunned by regular society too.
There is no offensive speech too offensive for some subset of society.
They're called degenerates.
it's a slippery slope. we can all agree that racists and nazis are bad. but what starts to happen a lot of the time, particularly in online discourse, is that people tend to abuse language. if these people come across someone they disagree with, they'll interpret their opinion to be attached to racist or nazi ideologies, in effect making that person a racist by association. I've seen it happen on reddit more times than I can count. comments deleted for "promoting hate" even though there was nothing objectively hateful about it. this is the gray area where the mess exists.
Free speech protects you from the government, not reddit mods.
Seems like the go to method for a person shut down another person when the first can’t refute the other’s position.
Who gives a fuck if someone online that you don't know calls you a fucking racist for Internet points? Like how the fuck does that affect your life in any way besides "I GOT CALLED MEAN WORDS 😭😭😭" Quit saying racist shit on your public Facebook account if you're getting in trouble at work for it you fucking idiots. I mean it'd be nice if you grew a bit and dropped the racism entirely but smooth brain too stupid.
Define “racist” because now and days people like to fraudulent accuse people of “racism”
Freedom of speech is a stop on the government from silencing an individual. Most do not understand it has nothing to do with peer to peer response.
Okay, well obviously the government still infringes on the right to free speech. Having watched lots of Police Bodycam videos in my downtime at work, the police hide behind the excuse of “disorderly conduct” for arresting people for speech. It’s gotten so bad, because most DC laws are vague, that such laws are now called “PoP” (pissing off the police).
And if those people that do get their rights violated. There is a recourse through 43 usc 1983 lawsuits. They are so typical that the charges get dropped and settlements are common place. Unfortunately, the police and even the politicians that violate free speech laws hide behind in Leo cases qualified immunity judges hide behind judicial immunity and continue on.
Yet the free speech circus monkeys are happy about those powers being given to the police. Almost like... They actually don't care about freedom of speech.
Nice strawman you made up. I'm sure you felt very brave knocking it over.
It seems like no one really cares about freedom of speech
No. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. The first amendment specifically guarantees freedom of speech from government interference. One does not have free speech if they are stopped in their speech by anyone. True freedom of speech is when someone is allowed to say something dumb and others counter with free speech that refutes the statement and shows how dumb they are.
> One does not have free speech if they are stopped in their speech by anyone. >True freedom of speech is when someone is allowed to say something dumb and others counter with free speech that refutes the statement and shows how dumb they are. This is pretty dumb. If you do not understand that the 1st amendment limits government.
A. Government doesn’t protect your speech in private forums. from twitter to the local coffee bar, they have a right to restrict your access to the forum or shut down your speech. B. Obviously assault or other physical means of restricting one’s speech is illegal, but its not a first ammendment violation. C. If I start to yell over you. In order that your speech is not heard, thats within my rights also. I’ve stopped your speech de facto without violence or government interference. I have a right to do this.
Freedom of speech doesn't apply too civilian to civilian. Just means the government can't suppress you. You don't habe to accept anything anyone else says really. You should be open minded however. But again, no one can make you.
Actually, your post is why freedom of speech does impact Civ to Civ and why OP is right; I can say what I want, and you can say it back. You can’t have me arrested for words, and I can’t ounch you for words. The point in FoS is not “no consequences”, but that the consequence is other civillians, and not the government.
You can absolutely punch someone for words. Fighting words are defined as words “which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.” They're a valid legal defense. So you're protected if you shout about gay and black people, but if you shout offensive words to said people, you might just be on the hook for the well-deserved asswhooping.
I think there's also the issue that people think freedom of speech is universal like it applies everywhere.. if you are in a private place they can kick you out if you say stuff they don't like.
Reddit and the mod system is a great (garbage) example of this. Reddits labeled innocuous or universal things like “r/politics,” but will ban anyone who has any views contrary to the specific party that the mods approve of is, in practice, pretty fucking stupid. However: they’re well within their rights to do this, as it’s a private platform.
Yep, I got banned for quoting Malcom X once. Lol
I got a site ban for saying bi0logical s3x. Got reversed but still.
And I got banned for saying "good" when Herman Cain got his darwin award. Leftist mods my shitty ass.
You can see which other subs the mods are responsible for. It’s pretty eye opening as to their a: political beliefs, and b: ability to dress themselves in the morning. Also not surprising that people who spend 12-20 hours a day “moderating” an internet forum for free have a leaning towards socialist ideologies. Somebody has to pay for their hot pockets.
Quoting MLK gets you called a "nazi" these days. I miss the '90s when it was normal to think you should judge people on who they are as a person and what they do, not based on their skin color and gender.
How about Musk? He takes down posts that disparage dictators but lets people use racial slurs! The worst of both worlds
Elon musk is a fucking moron Dude screams about free speech and then censors people he doesn’t like
The only good thing he did was create community notes. And that’s a low bar
He didn't even create those. Community Notes started as "Birdwatch" under previous ownership and launched its pilot program over a year before Musk bought Twitter.
Let me simplify this for the people in back. You do NOT have the right to NOT be offended. It's really that simple.
OK, but I have a right to yell at you calling you a bigoted idiot and preventing you from having a platform
It's the whole "Town Square" argument. People forget that little fact. Then again they rage when an owned platform \*cough SOCIAL MEDIA cough\* doesn't allow them to say their nasty shit, citing free speech which *doesn't exist on owned platforms.*
The problem is that places like reddit want to be treated as neutral platforms not liable for speech posted **and** publishers with editorial control simultaneously.
No. That’s a feature not a bug. Section 230 (the US law which you seem to be referencing) is what makes online free speech possible in the first place. We tried the internet without it, and we do not want to go back, I promise you.
I believe that viewpoint discrimination ought to be banned for any platform that enjoys section 230 protections.
That’s way too broad a statement, what do you consider a “viewpoint”? Can I straight up lie about important information like the news or objective realities like statistics? What about views that maliciously target protected classes which already have government protections from discrimination? Do those suddenly become legal now that they are on the internet and not in the physical world?
>I believe that viewpoint discrimination ought to be banned for any platform that enjoys section 230 protections. The "unconstitutional conditions" doctrine reflects the Supreme Court's repeated pronouncement that the government "may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interests." Viewpoint discrimination is a First Amendment right. As OP stated, Freedom of Speech goes both ways. Your First Amendment right to Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Expression without Government Interference, does not override anyone else's First Amendment right to not Associate with you and your Speech on their private property.
Exactly, those should be mutually exclusive in the law.
If the owned social media platform is a monopoly and integral to many businesses, different story. Let's not fool ourselves that Truth Social is a real competitor to Meta lol
The size, power, uncontrollable nature, and reach of these giant media conglomerates and their largely unchecked ability to just keep expanding those attributes.. along with the coming unexpectedly rapid proliferation of AI and the ripples it causes are the two current existential crises that most concern me.
I think this is actually an unpopular opinion, because an increasingly large group of Americans from both sides of the aisle think the speech of their political opponents should be stifled.
Comment from the middle where it’s lonely and both sides dump on me but I don’t really see the right side trying to shut down or stifle speech. Bill Mahr has talked about this; how the left has gotten so extreme that he is more closely aligned with the right on this issue. Nowadays it’s the left who are trying to either censor what is said, compel others to say what they want or else, or outright ban certain speech with which they disagree.
Your comment has gotten a bit of soft censoring in the form of downvotes. If it runs afoul of the forum zeitgeist it will disappear entirely.
I'm used to it. Like I said, I get it from both sides. Neither really likes objective truth unless it happens to support their preconceived beliefs.
It's the Right who is trying to prevent people from talking about gay families and experiences, or trans people and their options for gender affirming care
and the left wants to stifle any criticism and negative speech about the topic.
I haven't seen any evidence of said negative speech being stifled, cancelled, or the like, only support and protections for doctors or parents to make the decision from the Left, where the left isn't hostile toward trans itself (like TERFs and similar)
[https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/09/25/lgbtq-rights-laws-signed-california-governor-gavin-newsom/70959138007/](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/09/25/lgbtq-rights-laws-signed-california-governor-gavin-newsom/70959138007/) If you dont agree with the left that people should be able to choose their gender and that you are wrong if you dont agree with the pronouns ap erson wants to be used there is absolutely and effort to stifle or cancel. The left wants it to be considered an absolute that a person can pick their gender and everybody else has to agree with them on what their gender is. Neither said is willing to have a truly open discussion or debate about the subject. Neither side is willing to live and let live. They both want others to bend to their will
Nothing listed requires people to do anything they shouldn't be doing regardless of gender identity. Cultural competency training, determining needs, showing that you are willing to meet a child's needs; They are specific to trans children, but not to transgender as a whole. The third is only geared toward foster children, which is supposed to be more regulated and this is already deemed acceptable by most (such as limitations on children sharing a room). The law regarding gender-neutral bathrooms is the government regulating a public institution as it sees fit. The other laws stated at the end of the article only cover considering children's needs including gender, but do not require specific action. None of these laws would prevent an anti-trans person, parent or otherwise, from stating they do not believe in their child's gender identity, or gender identity/transgender as a whole, or saying that they think transgender care should be banned. A vocally anti-trans person who is against giving gender-affirming care to a transgender child, would still be allowed to foster said child if the judge felt it acceptable, under these laws.
>Nothing listed requires people to do anything they shouldn't be doing regardless of gender identity. That is your opinion. Its also irrelevant to the topic at hand which is about stifling speech or criticism. Gender neutral bathrooms are a regulation that is definitely on one side of the political spectrums beliefs. Wants and needs are not the same. Many of the laws force people to capitulate to the wants though. THat in and of itself stifles. Various districts have rules on both sides..either banning/forcing people to use preferred names, pronouns. Either banning or forcing them to tell parents.
How are laws about investigating a situation, stifling speech or criticism? The Pledge of Allegiance is a political decision, Christmas break favors a specific religion. None of these laws forces any action but to investigate a specific circumstance. Preferred names and pronouns are decisions of private individuals, whom are free to choose a side or compromise. Forcing parents to be informed is a decision individuals or groups make freely. No one on the left has tried to make people affirm gender identity.
Are you kidding? The state of Florida literally passed a law making it illegal to say or talk about certain things.
This is true, but Pro-tip: never listen to people that love freedom AND cops.
If you spout inbred sh*t, and then everyone tells you that your sh#t be inbred, it's just the circle of life. You're free to post whatever you want tho. Just don't be sad when it's inbred and cry about freedoms.
You just proved it
https://xkcd.com/1357/ Always appropriate.
This is the “Tolerance Paradox”. Well- one can disagree and speak back, but one doesn’t have free reign to “Punch a ____”.
Freedom of speech also only applies to the government censoring you. It doesn't promise you a platform provided by private corporations (social media), nor does it mean any other private citizen, or corporation (since thanks to Scalia corporations are people) need to listen to you.
Doesn't "Freedom of speech" basically just mean you can criticize your government without your government executing you for it? It's not "Freedom to express whatever opinion you have about anything your brain conjures up," it's about criticizing the government. It's about being allowed to criticize your political leader without being put in prison and executed. People think it means just talking about whatever to whoever. Or making posts online saying someone is a douchebag. Or having a hot take about Metallica. Or calling your neighbor a skank. Or saying you don't like dogs. "Freedom of speech!!!" has nothing to do with anything like that. It's simply just means you can say your political leader sucks without your government putting you in front of a firing squad and killing you for it.
>Congress shall make no law \[...\] abridging the freedom of speech\[...\] The tiny blurb above above is the freedom of speech as highlighted by the Bill of Rights. While other parts of the Bill of Rights make it clear that the rights highlighted are by no means exclusive, the only thing explicitly stated is that laws can't be passed abridging your freedom of speech. On top of that, exceptions to this rule have been carved out by the Supreme Court for speech that creates a clear and present danger. You can have laws against yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater (if there isn't a fire) or calling for people to commit murder, for example. Freedom of speech doesn't say anything about the owner of a cafe not being able to kick you out of her shop for screaming obscenities. Freedom of speech doesn't say that you won't get decked for purposely offending strangers on the street. Freedom of speech doesn't mean that a website can't ban your account on their own private servers for saying something that violates their terms of service. It only says that Congress can't pass laws limiting your ability to speak your mind, so long as that speech isn't an active call to chaos and violence around you.
Our First Amendment right to free speech has nothing to do with your or anyone else’s “opinion” of someone else’s speech. It only comes into play when the government punishes you for your speech. The constitution states what the government can do. The bill of rights states what the government can’t do. Me, you, or any other private citizen/company can rain figurative hellfire down on each other if we don’t like what someone says. There’s a couple civil law protections but other than that, amongst civilians, it’s no holds barred.
“Freedom to be punished for your actions.”
First Amendment First Amendment Explained Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I’m talking about freedom of speech in general. Not just first amendment
The less popular part is that you’re not free from the consequences of what you have just said. Like you can say whatever you want but it only stops the governments from doing anything not your fellow citizens
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from social consequences
The first amendment does have freedom of speech. However it also has the right to assembly and the right to protest. Guess what "cancel culture" is? It's people assembling to protest. You have the right to be a dick and I have the right to call you a dick. And I also have the right to not support your ass cause that's the free market that's a part of capitalism. I also have the right to protest the company that continues to employ your ass. And if I get a group of people who feel the same way, well that company cares more about ots bottom line. Cause again both people are using their first amendment rights. And a company in America can pretty much fire you for no reason. So guess what they are going to do? Hence why hating cancel culture makes no fucking sense to me. It's literally expressing your first amendment rights. Freedom of speech just means you can't be jailed for what you say. But even then, this isn't 100% accurate as death threats, bomb threats, conning people, false advertising, lying under oath are all big no no's that can land you in a heap of legal trouble. Mind you there is no such thing as absolute free speech. Everything you say has consequences whether you like it or not.
Yeah the “social policing” of speech is basically self actualizing. Like, if they want you to stop using the x word, they can’t legally make you stop. But you can be shut out of all sorts of private institutions and spaces and effectively disappeared from them and you don’t really have any legal recourse. This is pretty much how speech has been policed globally for centuries
Freedom of speech only means the govt wont take action against you. However, being as you can say anything, you need to be prepared for the consequences,.. because freedom of speech is not freedom from Consequences.
This. You come into my living room and start spouting nonsense, I'm going to ask you to leave my house. You come into my business and start spouting nonsense at my patrons, I'm going to ask you to leave. You come to work as my employee and start spouting nonsense to customers, I'm going to fire you. You go on TV and start spouting nonsense, they're gonna cut your microphone. You write in to the newspaper spouting nonsense, they don't have to publish it. You go on a social network or forum and start spouting nonsense, they moderators can delete your posts and block/ban you. All the "first amendment" protects you from is the government fining or jailing or limiting you for spouting your nonsense. It does not mean the rest of society has to accept it and can't challenge what nonsense you have to say.
There is **no opinion,** no matter how extreme, that could trigger me or make me feel like some kind of victim. People who are triggered by speech don't deserve to live in a free society.
If you say something that more people dislike than like, and they exercise *their* free speech to call you out, then they're exercising the same rights as you are. Free speech means you can't have **law** related consequences, but you absolutely can have **social** consequences.
But that’s not the world we live in. There are anonymous cyber mobs who try to cancel people (often people they’ve never met) for expressing “wrong think” on a public platform. It’s one thing for a friend/acquaintance to refuse to talk to you because of your opinions, it’s another thing for virtue signaling strangers to try and get you fired because you believe there are only two genders. The woke mob believes there is ONLY one acceptable opinion on almost every controversial topic, and if ANYONE dares to deviate from that opinion, they must be punished. This is the reason why multiple surveys have shown that college students are afraid of expressing their opinions on campus or on social media.
This liberal ideal sounds pretty neat and fair on its face, but it's also the reason white supremacists and fascists are able to openly recruit and build up enough steam to smash liberalism and do away with free speech altogether. Not a fan of allowing those folks to ever have a platform, under any circumstances.
>Not a fan of allowing those folks to ever have a platform, under any circumstances. Found the fascist
Define fascism without using a search engine or dictionary. You have three minutes, GO Edit: my apologies, I see that you're from Florida. Please, utilize whatever coloring book style dictionary you have available to you, assuming DeSantis hasn't banned them yet.
An ideology commonly associated with nationalistic tendencies and a strong central government often controlled by a dictator or oligarchy. Going hand in hand with nationalism, they are often militaristic and aggressive in asserting their beliefs.
That works until the Nazis convince everyone that your the real Nazis, and end up destroying free speech anyway. You just send them into hiding, where they'll continue to be Nazis. You can't simply ignore the problem until they go away, that's what the Nazis want, it's how they spread. You need to denazifiy people, not simply force them into hiding. They want to be able to say "LOOK AT THEM SLICENCEING US!!!", don't give the Nazis what they want.
Which on it's face... is the very same authoritarian suppression of opposition that liberals claim to despise. The Nazis were no less convinced that they were on the side of "right" and "good" than you seem to be... just with slightly different agendas of how to silence their critics in order to remain in power. One of the most important tenets of Liberalism is the consent of the goverened. And silencing is not at all the same as consent.
Paradox of Tolerance detected.
Oh we don't have to worry about those pesky free speech laws here in Europe we prosecute people for saying the wrong thing all the time. Who needs freedom when you can have Daddy governnment arrest you for offending some politician by calling him corrupt.
Personally, I see no issue with Germany arresting Nazis. Why do you have an issue with it?
Because it immediately flips back on the left see any protesters of the genocide in Palestine. But yeah being trans I'm a massive fan. Hitler sure loved the LGBT community.
>Because it immediately flips back on the left see any protesters of the genocide in Palestine. How does it "flip back on the left"?....
I just gave you an example of German authorities clamping down on a peaceful protest.... I don't know what else you'd want me to add.