Free Speech Goes Only One Way
-
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.
-
"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.
wrote last edited by [email protected]JFC I am only explaining the legal and cultural framework. Which should have clarified things for you,
instead of making you angry.fuck the fuck off -
JFC I am only explaining the legal and cultural framework. Which should have clarified things for you,
instead of making you angry.fuck the fuck offI can assure you, between the two of us, only one person is angry enough to express it. Have a good day.
-
I can assure you, between the two of us, only one person is angry enough to express it. Have a good day.
Sorry. But understand the context im giving you. You don't have to argue that its not true.
-
I didn't say any of that. I have no clue where you got that from
I should have been more clear. I posted the article as an example of what I understood you were pointing at.
When I said "you", I should have said the author of the article. I wasn't being clear enough.
I think your take is right on the money.
-
Edit: Guess who won't face any accountability.
Sounds like a bunch of snowflakes enacting their cancel culture.
-
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?
Covie
@covie_93on x formerly known as twitter:Minutes after former President Jimmy Carter's death was announced Scott Jennings was on CNN calling him a "terrible president" with a "big ego". He wasn't fired. He never apologized.
After Paul Pelosi was attacked Fox News hosts joked about it on air. They weren't fired. They never apologized.
After Charlie Kirk was killed Matthew Dowd said on MSNBC that he was "divisive" adding, "hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions." He was fired after apologizing.
Free speech only goes one way.
Sep 11, 2025 · 3:08 AM UTC
It's totally comprehensible why users here do not post links to this hatespeech platform imho.
-
I still can't believe they wanted people to send pictures of their arms to prove they are a person of color before posting/commenting. Okay, maybe I can believe that. What I can't believe is that anyone defended it
-
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?
Find a real news source did if you want real news. This a Wendy's.
-
Edit: Guess who won't face any accountability.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Free speech is to allow the multi-billionaire companies to advertise their products to the masses.
It isn't free speech so much as a right to advertise. It helps billionaire companies much more than anyone else. -
Covie
@covie_93on x formerly known as twitter:Minutes after former President Jimmy Carter's death was announced Scott Jennings was on CNN calling him a "terrible president" with a "big ego". He wasn't fired. He never apologized.
After Paul Pelosi was attacked Fox News hosts joked about it on air. They weren't fired. They never apologized.
After Charlie Kirk was killed Matthew Dowd said on MSNBC that he was "divisive" adding, "hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions." He was fired after apologizing.
Free speech only goes one way.
Sep 11, 2025 · 3:08 AM UTC
It's totally comprehensible why users here do not post links to this hatespeech platform imho.
It’s totally comprehensible
Not really.
Not linking to source, because they hate the hosting platform is feel-good, petty vindictiveness that that does little against the platform while actually hurting the uninvolved on accessibility & usability.
To prevent traffic to platforms, linking to alternatives like proxies for those services & web archival snapshots is common practice around here. -
Find a real news source did if you want real news. This a Wendy's.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Are you enabling/promoting exclusion & ableism?
-
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.
Nobody ever said this was about the first ammendment. Its illustrating the double standards the oligarchs have set for everyone who isn't on their side. Everybody knows at this point the government and oligarchy are one and the same.
-
Are you enabling/promoting exclusion & ableism?
Yes, be able to Google something. Hard to imagine anyone here on lemmy can't manage that
-
Edit: Guess who won't face any accountability.
The BBC was able to report on his controversy easier
-
Nobody ever said this was about the first ammendment. Its illustrating the double standards the oligarchs have set for everyone who isn't on their side. Everybody knows at this point the government and oligarchy are one and the same.
I agree the point is to Illustrate a double standard. I don't know if it's the same organisation that owns msnbc and fox, either way. It's still not a freedom of speech issue. Which a lot of people are claiming.
-
Are you enabling/promoting exclusion & ableism?
wrote last edited by [email protected]If you're impaired, consider yourself lucky you can't read it. It's negative value to you.
-
Edit: Guess who won't face any accountability.
Guess who won't face any accountability.
-
What if the government is putting pressure on the organization.
Then it becomes a free speech issue.
You mean like back in 2020-21, when the Biden admin was putting pressure on Twitter to ban anyone who was critical of their COVID policies, and they even ended up deplatforming the guy who pioneered mRNA vaccines?
