Free Speech Goes Only One Way
Free Speech Goes Only One Way
Edit: Guess who won't face any accountability.
You're viewing a single thread.
142 comments
-
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.
-
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.
-
Your misunderstanding of what constitutes Freedom of speech is utterly irrelevant to what it actually is.
-
-
-
-
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.
-
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.
-
-
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.
-
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.
-
-
-
-
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.
-
That still doesn't make it a freedom of speech issue.
There absolutely is a distinction between "Freedom of speech" and "Tolerance of Speech". I agree.
I can make that distinction. Seems OOP, and most people, can't. You're doing everyone a huge disservice by attributing acts that has nothing to do with freedom of speech, to freedom of speech.
Ever heard of the story about the boy who cried wolf?
-
-
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.
-
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.
-
-
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.
-
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.
-
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-
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.
-
-
-
-
-
142 comments