Free Speech Goes Only One Way
-
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.
-
Damn I made the same mistake earlier
The right is almost entirely made up of interchangable white dudes. It's an easy mistake to make
-
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 retaliation from the government, not from being fired by your company.
I would argue that that is a difficult thing to say. Wasn't there a series of lawsuits against companies because they refused to hire women for special roles? Or was that in another country? possibly it was in germany
Anyways, in some countries, companies can get legal punishment if they discriminate based on gender and ethnicity and such. I would argue "free speech" might be protected similarly.
-
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.
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.
-
Слава Україні, Cлава Палестині.
what does "Слава" mean btw?
-
Edit: Guess who won't face any accountability.
The only "way" free speech goes is... Leaving the US as we speak.
-
Edit: Guess who won't face any accountability.
wrote last edited by [email protected]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.
-
Edit: Guess who won't face any accountability.
wrote last edited by [email protected]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
-
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.
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.
-
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
Yeah, because only one side cares about language and the words we use.
That's a weird of saying having an executive board that is weak as fuck & won't stand behind their commentators.
-
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?
