Free Speech Goes Only One Way
-
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.
-
"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?
