Free Speech Goes Only One Way
-
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?
-
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?
Yup, that is classic suppression. Of course you could argue that is was for the benefit of public health as opposed to a witch hunt to get a bunch of people fired for not worshipping an alt-right propagandist.
-
Yup, that is classic suppression. Of course you could argue that is was for the benefit of public health as opposed to a witch hunt to get a bunch of people fired for not worshipping an alt-right propagandist.
You don't think celebrating the murder of a political enemy on national TV isn't setting a dangerous precedent to encourage more political violence from both sides? Do you really want to live in a world where people just get shot for having a different opinion from yours?
-
You don't think celebrating the murder of a political enemy on national TV isn't setting a dangerous precedent to encourage more political violence from both sides? Do you really want to live in a world where people just get shot for having a different opinion from yours?
First of all no one did this on national TV. Perhaps you referring to edge lords on the Internet making snide or rude comments. This is nothing to worry about. I heard people talk about hanging or shooting Obama for several years when I lived in Idaho. Celebrating and fantasizing about killing the President did absolutely nothing.
Second, we already live in a society where the right wing is constantly calling for violence. They have been openly talking about killing people from the Democratic party for decades. Rush Limbaugh was particularly found of this and he received the Medal of Freedom.
Let's be clear here, a couple of edgy people have celebrated his death. A lot of people recognize he was a piece of shit and are not upset at all other than to say no one should have to die this way.
The violent rhetoric comes regularly from the conservatives. Even the president of the United States sent a message he was bringing the Department of War to Chicago to enact an apocalypse. Kind of blows a few edge lords cheering on Kirk's death out of the motherfucking water.
-
First of all no one did this on national TV. Perhaps you referring to edge lords on the Internet making snide or rude comments. This is nothing to worry about. I heard people talk about hanging or shooting Obama for several years when I lived in Idaho. Celebrating and fantasizing about killing the President did absolutely nothing.
Second, we already live in a society where the right wing is constantly calling for violence. They have been openly talking about killing people from the Democratic party for decades. Rush Limbaugh was particularly found of this and he received the Medal of Freedom.
Let's be clear here, a couple of edgy people have celebrated his death. A lot of people recognize he was a piece of shit and are not upset at all other than to say no one should have to die this way.
The violent rhetoric comes regularly from the conservatives. Even the president of the United States sent a message he was bringing the Department of War to Chicago to enact an apocalypse. Kind of blows a few edge lords cheering on Kirk's death out of the motherfucking water.
Well, since you can clearly tell the difference between talking about killing someone and actually killing them, I'm sure it won't be too difficult to tell the difference between fantasizing about someone's dead and actually celebrating it.
But the real problem is that while Kirk may have been a dunderhead, at least he was still willing to have a debate. The next guy they're gonna send likely isn't going to be so kind. You want fascism? Because killing the people who are willing to talk is how you get fascism.
