Free Speech Goes Only One Way
-
No, you are conflating the first amendment, a limited protection of free speech, with free speech itself.
It is very much a violation of free speech, its just not illegal. It still is immoral.
EDIT: fixed second amendment to first amendment
*first amendment
Though some do conflate guns with free speech as well...
-
bunch of disengenous fuck bags with zero beliefs outside of economics
I feel "economice" is too wide of a phrase to be used with these cunts.
They don't believe in economics, they believe in self service, control, and grifting as much as they can.
It's not economics, it's taking advantage of the mentally disabled half of the population.
Yeah, I used the term loosely to represent Money. No American government has displayed sound economic policy in terms of their populace. Economics itself is a broken fake science that does not factor in real world costs like human lives, environmental damage, etc...
-
Every Reich needs a Horst Wessel
Oh God I hope nobody writes a bad fucking song about him we will have to listen to at every Nazi march for the next 80 years
-
*first amendment
Though some do conflate guns with free speech as well...
Thanks for the correction, my bad
-
You gate keeping me from comments against Reddit?
Get bent.
Says the 35+ year old with smilies in thier choosen name.
-
Edit: Guess who won't face any accountability.
The media is captured by the right.
That's a VERY, VERY bad sign for our nation and democracy in general, and, historically, that's an indication that things about about to get REAL dark.
We should start printing flyers expressing views like the views this guy was fired for and posting them up all over our cities. We can't rely on the media to be able to express truth anymore. And posting said views on here or other, more censored, social media isn't going to cut it anymore. Doesn't reach enough people, and not the right people. The people on the fence. The people on the middle. The people that will end up being captured by the right because they control the media.
-
Says the 35+ year old with smilies in thier choosen name.
Definitely + ....
-
Definitely + ....
Time to mature, lady.
-
I’m sorry I don’t understand what you’re saying with your last sentence?
wrote last edited by [email protected]Sorry, I was unclear.
The screenshot posted here is a screenshot Reddit which is a screenshot of Twatter/X.
And as far as scumbags bo, both have prominent top class scumbags attacked to those companies.
-
I sure wouldn't say no if they got rid of Stephen Crowder, since he's the one in this meme.
Damn I made the same mistake earlier
-
Edit: Guess who won't face any accountability.
wrote last edited by [email protected]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.
-
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.
There's a distinction between 1st amendment free speech and, more colloquially, tolerance for free expression. The OOP was complaining about firings, so they are referring to the latter.
It's easy to understand people when you think for a minute and give them the benefit of doubt, I find.
-
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.
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.
It doesn't protect you from the government in any practical sense. Just ask Hewy Newton or Fred Hampton or MLK. Ask Mahmoud Khalil or the 25 pro-Palestinian demonstrators arrested just three weeks ago. Ask Tatiana Martinez, A Colombian TikTok influencer in Los Angeles was arrested by ICE agents during a live stream.
The FBI has had task forces dedicated to COINTELPRO since the 60s. Freedom of Speech in the US is entirely fictitious.
What we're seeing in Mass Media is a trickle-down effect resulting from the US involvement in contracts to Tech Companies and large banks with ownership of private news outlets. Paramount settling a case over disparagement in a 60 Minutes interview with Trump for $16M came on the heels of an FCC decision about their merger with Skydance. The Bezos Post firing senior correspondents and staffing up with reactionary hacks comes as DOGE threatens a host of government contracts with Amazon's primary moneymaker, Amazon Web Services. Bloomberg getting peppered with lawsuits in Trump-friendly courts is a secondary result of Mike's feud with Trump on a national stage.
You are being wilfully ignorant if you refuse to draw a straight line between business sector firings of highly placed journalists and the parent companies of these media businesses cutting deals with the current administration.
-
I sure wouldn't say no if they got rid of Stephen Crowder, since he's the one in this meme.
Crowder is so far on the outs with the mainstream right-wing piggy bank that he would probably accept taking a bullet wound to recover his reputation.
-
Yeah, because only one side cares about language and the words we use. The other side is a bunch of disengenous fuck bags with zero beliefs outside of economics
wrote last edited by [email protected]Yeah, because only one side cares about language and the words we use.
People across the political spectrum care. But views vary significantly around what words and language should be encouraged and what should be censored.
Nobody with an ounce of authority is actually against censorship of one degree or another. FFS, some of the biggest modern media censors are the wanna-be libertarian scalds of the Obama administration (Bari Weiss being an obvious example). Censorship is a method of shaping public perception and encouraging civil actions of one sort or another. The irony of Kirk's death is that he repeatedly extolled the virtues of political violence only to eat shit when one of his own Groyper buddies went off the reservation. Hell, his final breath was expended snarkily deflecting the threat of mass shootings onto "gang violence".
Anyone who says they don't care about the political use of language is either nakedly naive or blowing smoke up your ass. And you can often tell one from the other by asking whether they're old enough to buy their own beer.
-
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.
It doesn't protect you from the government in any practical sense. Just ask Hewy Newton or Fred Hampton or MLK. Ask Mahmoud Khalil or the 25 pro-Palestinian demonstrators arrested just three weeks ago. Ask Tatiana Martinez, A Colombian TikTok influencer in Los Angeles was arrested by ICE agents during a live stream.
The FBI has had task forces dedicated to COINTELPRO since the 60s. Freedom of Speech in the US is entirely fictitious.
What we're seeing in Mass Media is a trickle-down effect resulting from the US involvement in contracts to Tech Companies and large banks with ownership of private news outlets. Paramount settling a case over disparagement in a 60 Minutes interview with Trump for $16M came on the heels of an FCC decision about their merger with Skydance. The Bezos Post firing senior correspondents and staffing up with reactionary hacks comes as DOGE threatens a host of government contracts with Amazon's primary moneymaker, Amazon Web Services. Bloomberg getting peppered with lawsuits in Trump-friendly courts is a secondary result of Mike's feud with Trump on a national stage.
You are being wilfully ignorant if you refuse to draw a straight line between business sector firings of highly placed journalists and the parent companies of these media businesses cutting deals with the current administration.
There have been numerous instances of successful lawsuits against the government where someone's freedom of speech was infringed upon. They were awarded monetary compensation.
The purpose of "Freedom of speech" is to protect you from the government.
A news media company collaborating with the government is certainly immoral. But it's not a "Freedom of speech" violation.
-
Edit: Guess who won't face any accountability.
Gramsci talked about this long before the 24/7 news cycles even existed. This is what the bourgeois hegemony is. Hegemony isn't defined only by the brute force of the state to enforce itself onto the people, but encompasses the ownership of cultural, political, and intellectual institutions too. The role of hegemony is to shape the views and values of the underlying classes as to make said values seem normal, organic, and timeless. This in turn will manufacture the consent the owning class needs in order to pursue its interests. As of now, the bourgeois hegemony has decided that Charlie Kirk needs to be brought on equal footing with other political activists. They have decided that the subordinate classes need to accept that Charlie Kirk's very real and tangible political activism is nothing but "opinions" in "the marketplace of ideas" and the consequences he has suffered at the hands of the system he helped build are unexpected. This is why everyone from the democrats to the republicans, from the liberal media to the conservative media is suddenly calling out "political violence" and mourning Kirk publicly. The bourgeoisie is trying to instill a new Zeitgeist and the people calling it out are a thorn in their side.
-
There have been numerous instances of successful lawsuits against the government where someone's freedom of speech was infringed upon. They were awarded monetary compensation.
The purpose of "Freedom of speech" is to protect you from the government.
A news media company collaborating with the government is certainly immoral. But it's not a "Freedom of speech" violation.
There have been numerous instances of successful lawsuits against the government where someone’s freedom of speech was infringed upon.
For every singular success there's been a thousand failures. And the long arc of history has bent towards censorship, particularly in the 21st century.
The purpose of “Freedom of speech” is to protect you from the government.
The courts do not protect your freedom to speak. They occasionally promise compensation years after you've had your speech quashed and your organization busted up. But the bar for the plaintiff is high and the cost of legal fees is crippling.
A news media company collaborating with the government is certainly immoral.
This isn't about morality. A news company manager that acts at the behest of a government agency bureaucrat in exchange for financial compensation is an agent of the government. In the same way that a private security guard paid with public money is a cop.
You're not free. Your oppression has been monetized.
-
There have been numerous instances of successful lawsuits against the government where someone’s freedom of speech was infringed upon.
For every singular success there's been a thousand failures. And the long arc of history has bent towards censorship, particularly in the 21st century.
The purpose of “Freedom of speech” is to protect you from the government.
The courts do not protect your freedom to speak. They occasionally promise compensation years after you've had your speech quashed and your organization busted up. But the bar for the plaintiff is high and the cost of legal fees is crippling.
A news media company collaborating with the government is certainly immoral.
This isn't about morality. A news company manager that acts at the behest of a government agency bureaucrat in exchange for financial compensation is an agent of the government. In the same way that a private security guard paid with public money is a cop.
You're not free. Your oppression has been monetized.
Your misunderstanding of what constitutes Freedom of speech is utterly irrelevant to what it actually is.
-
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.
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.
