Free Speech Goes Only One Way
-
Edit: Guess who won't face any accountability.
OP: Instead of posting an image of an image of text without link to source or text alternative, which breaks accessibility, searchability, and fault tolerance for no compelling reason while making the web less usable, could you try at least linking to source?
-
Both sides are held to their own standards – but only one side actually has standards.
If you have zero standards, as does the right, what is there to hold anyone to?
Worse, when you’ve swaddled yourself in fanatic Christianity, where the only one who can judge you is a god, and he’ll forgive all your sins if you accept some guy into your heart, and the way to do that is to say you have, you can do literally anything and be accepted.
The rest of us hold each other accountable. As we should.
Don’t pine for the blind acceptance of sociopaths – it’s infernal for all of us.
Cowardice is a standard?
-
Posts like this, and most comments to be honest. Really makes me question how low the bar is in the US in terms of general education. You all talk about "Freedom of speech" while not having a single clue as to what it actually is.
Freedom of speech, protects you from your government (with some exceptions, often being, threats, incitement, disclosing classified information, and things of that nature), that's it.
Freedom of speech, is all of those people saying all of those things, without facing criminal charges or other forms of retaliation from the government.
It does not, will not, and never have, protected you from losing employment because of what you say.
It's also an ethical norm.
Legally, however, media company executives caving and settling lawsuits with obscene payouts to Trump while in office draws into question decisions at other media companies that appear to chill free speech to avoid further legal action.
-
Cowardice is a standard?
Depends on how you define cowardice, I guess. Care to enlighten me?
-
Depends on how you define cowardice, I guess. Care to enlighten me?
A company not standing behind its commentators who didn't even say anything false for fear of lawsuit from orange man or mob outrage.
-
Yah but just release the list
What list?
-
Edit: Guess who won't face any accountability.
There has never been a good President in AmeriKKKa so he's at least correct on that part.
-
A company not standing behind its commentators who didn't even say anything false for fear of lawsuit from orange man or mob outrage.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Companies aren’t actually people and therefore cannot experience cowardice.
(e: nor the shame or stigma that accompanies it, thus their actions, and why actual cowards hide behind them.)
-
what does "Слава" mean btw?
Long live/ Glory To
-
Companies aren’t actually people and therefore cannot experience cowardice.
(e: nor the shame or stigma that accompanies it, thus their actions, and why actual cowards hide behind them.)
wrote last edited by [email protected]No shit, they have boards of executives who are cowards & just looking to maximize stock returns.
Editorial freedom?
Stand up to right-wing pressure & tell them to go suck a dick?
Nah, sacrifice integrity & cave like bitchasses. -
You managed to be technically correct while missing the entire point of the post.
OP's quote is about being able to voice controversial opinions without consequences, not the legal protection specified in the constitution. He is claiming that only one side is ever held to account for saying odious things.
Adhering narrowly to facts without considering context is not demonstrative of good thinking, nor is it typical of good debating.
OP’s quote is about being able to voice controversial opinions without consequences
You ever heard of the saying "Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences"?
The kind of saying people would use in response to being accused of "cancel culture" a couple of years ago.
So, congratulations, you've gone full circle. Except this time around, the shoe is on the other foot.
I'm not here to debate what you think "Freedom of speech" is. I'm informing you of what it is, and what it isn't. Do with that what you will.
-
This is the absolute worst instance of what you're talking about that I've seen. I have no idea how you can say he advocated Christianity at his best. He was an effective political organizer of the conservative youth movement able to take oppressive messaging and wrap it in the vaneer of liberalism and Christian marginalization. He did this for some very powerful and monied institutions. He created a monster.
I didn't say any of that. I have no clue where you got that from
-
Edit: Guess who won't face any accountability.
Something something freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences
-
Posts like this, and most comments to be honest. Really makes me question how low the bar is in the US in terms of general education. You all talk about "Freedom of speech" while not having a single clue as to what it actually is.
Freedom of speech, protects you from your government (with some exceptions, often being, threats, incitement, disclosing classified information, and things of that nature), that's it.
Freedom of speech, is all of those people saying all of those things, without facing criminal charges or other forms of retaliation from the government.
It does not, will not, and never have, protected you from losing employment because of what you say.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Freedom of speech is a broader principle, and existed before the US.
The 1st Amendment ensures our speech is protected from the government; it does not give that right. Our rights are considered "natural rights" and thus law only codifies them; rights are not given to us by the government. Small but important detail.
-
Fuck man. We are at peak stupid right now. Kirk was a piece of shit, the people leading the us are pieces of shit. Ceo's and leaders of racist/ fascist movements are getting shot in the streets.
The people are pissed, we are entering a tipping point
Tipping point USA?
-
Freedom of speech is a broader principle, and existed before the US.
The 1st Amendment ensures our speech is protected from the government; it does not give that right. Our rights are considered "natural rights" and thus law only codifies them; rights are not given to us by the government. Small but important detail.
"Freedom of speech" is not a universal right. Everything you have is in the end, given or granted to you by your respective government. Some afford more rights than others.
They're the ones that govern after all.
You've never been able to just say what you want without consequence. If you're working as tech support and just tell your customers they can fuck off every time they have a problem, chances are, you're not going to be employed much longer.
"BUT MUH FREEDOM OF SPEECH!?" yeah. You're free to say it. Congratulations. Now you suffer civil repercussions.
-
OP’s quote is about being able to voice controversial opinions without consequences
You ever heard of the saying "Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences"?
The kind of saying people would use in response to being accused of "cancel culture" a couple of years ago.
So, congratulations, you've gone full circle. Except this time around, the shoe is on the other foot.
I'm not here to debate what you think "Freedom of speech" is. I'm informing you of what it is, and what it isn't. Do with that what you will.
Thank you for attempting to inform me, but it was unnecessary. As I mentioned already and as my post made clear, I am aware that there is more than one form of free speech. Your view is parochial; concepts of free speech exist beyond your narrow definition and your narrow country.
I will attempt to explain OP's point again, since you are still somehow missing it. OP is saying that there are consequences for speech if the speaker is liberal and no consequences for speech if the speaker is conservative. OP is saying that standards are applied differently based on your political beliefs. OP does not specify who is meting out the consequences.
-
I would also argue that Democratic "news" companies could fire people for views they deem unacceptable. Just that, for some reason, most "news" (actually more infotainment) companies for some reason tend to be conservative.
This is why this struggle is actually also about economic issues, i.e. what people own how much stuff. This is what should also be considered and tackled, somehow.
I definitely agree that ownership of news media companies is highly problematic. That's why public broadcasters are so important - they are not beholden to private owners.
-
Thank you for attempting to inform me, but it was unnecessary. As I mentioned already and as my post made clear, I am aware that there is more than one form of free speech. Your view is parochial; concepts of free speech exist beyond your narrow definition and your narrow country.
I will attempt to explain OP's point again, since you are still somehow missing it. OP is saying that there are consequences for speech if the speaker is liberal and no consequences for speech if the speaker is conservative. OP is saying that standards are applied differently based on your political beliefs. OP does not specify who is meting out the consequences.
The boy who cried wolf. Time and time again. When one actually showed up. No one cared, because no one believed it.
I'm fully aware of what point OOP is trying to make. It just doesn't have anything to do with Freedom of speech.
