Current Events > First Amendment: The government won't make any laws prohibiting free speech

(+) Yeah! (+)

joe40001 posted...

I just posted the links, get rekt

you're "redefining your statement" reminds me heavily of clinton debating the definition of is...

---

justaguy3492 posted...

It makes total sense to me that "rightys" are in favor of being able to spew hate and misinformation on the internet. If the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th amendment weren't already in place, they'd probably be opposed to them.

The left has it's share of hate and misinformation.

Kinda not the point though because we are all choosing to sell our souls to big tech in this dumb squabble amongst each other.

---

unnamedsoldier posted...

What's with libertarians being like "at least it's not the gubmint"?

at least twitter can't drone strike you yet

---

FL81 posted...

at least twitter can't drone strike you yet

Amazon is looking into that, though.

Middle hope posted...

I've never seen this image before.

That has so much potential.

---

AloneIBreak posted...

Its insane to me that leftists are so in favor of corporate censorship. If the first amendment werent already in place, theyd probably be opposed to it.

So called conservatives supporting the government having the right to force content onto other people's websites is infinitely more paradoxical. That's no different than the government forcing newspapers to hire certain journalists or forcing television shows to convey certain messages.

---

monkmith posted...

you're "redefining your statement" reminds me heavily of clinton debating the definition of is...

I wasn't redefining it. I was making it clear. It was always what my statement meant.

And the clinton analogy doesn't make sense.

You're just salty because you called bullshit and 2 seconds later you got shown up. You probably live in a world in your mind where 100% of republicans oppose healthcare, fighting climate change, financial support for people, etc.

And that reductive simplistic world is delusional and wrong.

---

I think it's one of those things where there is some merit in discussion on the topic, but then it gets taken to the usual stupid hysterical extremes so the stuff worth discussing gets overlooked.

joe40001 posted...

The left has it's share of hate and misinformation.

Kinda not the point though because we are all choosing to sell our souls to big tech in this dumb squabble amongst each other.

It's interesting that you responded to my shitpost directed at another user, but not my post that was serious towards you.

---

Questionmarktarius posted...

Amazon is looking into that, though.

hey, as long as they can sell me missiles cheaper than the competition

---

joe40001 posted...

To be clear I meant "more than 50% of americans and a considerable amount of republicans" not "more than 50% republicans"

A rather important distinction.

---

Questionmarktarius posted...

Amazon is looking into that, though.

Which is why we need to be INSANELY wary of expanding domestic terrorism rules, we already play way too fast and loose with our terrorism rules, basically just invoke the word "terrorism" and you can treat anybody worse than prisoners of war.

We have a legal system for a reason, and anything that tries to work around that is something to be insanely warey of.

---

FL81 posted...

hey, as long as they can sell me missiles cheaper than the competition

You have to pay local sales tax on them now, though. That sucks.

justaguy3492 posted...

It's interesting that you responded to my shitpost directed at another user, but not my post that was serious towards you.

I don't see every post sometimes

justaguy3492 posted...

It is possible to criticize these large companies for their numerous faults while also applauding them for cutting down on speech and misinformation that is present on their platform. There's room for nuances, it doesn't have to be a which side are you on thing that you're making it out to be.

They really aren't cutting down on it, they are performative about such things. If they really actually truly wanted to fight misinformation they would correct their algorithms to stop funneling people based on "engagement" and instead on "value", but because engagement is easier and plays to people's tribal lizard brain and all we are doing by having twitter drunkly police speech is letting putting the arsonists in charge of fire suppression.

---

joe40001 posted...

We have a legal system for a reason, and anything that tries to work around that is something to be insanely warey of.

This is true, but it's also most of the legal system trying to work around the legal system.

---

unnamedsoldier posted...

https://i.imgur.com/ZrFCdxu.jpg

Until they hurt republicans.

---

Guide posted...

but it's also most of the legal system trying to work around the legal system.

When you have to code exceptions into a law, that's a decent sign the law itself is bad or at least misguided.

Guide posted...

This is true, but it's also most of the legal system trying to work around the legal system.

Yeah fair, but I do feel like avoiding the rights to a free and fair trial and basic things like that in the name of "anti-terrorism" is a higher level of avoiding the legal system.


---

AloneIBreak posted...

Its insane to me that leftists are so in favor of corporate censorship. If the first amendment werent already in place, theyd probably be opposed to it.

Its understandable because a lot of companies, including some media, align with their views.

If the major social media outlets and Hollywood, for example, started banning the current president and his administration from using their platforms, Id bet any amount of money that the same people saying its Ok for companies to do that now would be super mad about it happening to their own side. Thats just human nature.

---

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

Its understandable because a lot of companies, including some media, align with their views.

If the major social media outlets and Hollywood, for example, started banning the current president and his administration from using their platforms, Id bet any amount of money that the same people saying its Ok for companies to do that now would be super mad about it happening to their own side. Thats just human nature.

It's unprincipled people's human nature. But yes. And it definitely cuts both ways obviously.

I don't really respect the opinions of anybody's whose values are a function of what benefits them the most in the moment.

I can't count the number of people who act like free speech is just freedom to say stuff they don't strongly disapprove of.

---

joe40001 posted...

they are performative about such things.

This is a fair argument. They SHOULD be banning more of the loonies in congress spreading misinformation. I agree that their algorithm should be updated and that they should be more heavy handed, especially with the so called "disinformation dozen".

---

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

If the major social media outlets and Hollywood, for example, started banning the current president and his administration from using their platforms, Id bet any amount of money that the same people saying its Ok for companies to do that now would be super mad about it happening to their own side. Thats just human nature.

If Biden starts spouting off misinformation on twitter you will be hard pressed to find anyone on "my side" who would be mad when he gets banned. Let's not pretend Trump was just talking about his thoughts on legislation.

---

justaguy3492 posted...

This is a fair argument. They SHOULD be banning more of the loonies in congress spreading misinformation. I agree that their algorithm should be updated and that they should be more heavy handed, especially with the so called "disinformation dozen".

I'm not sure we are saying the same thing.

---

justaguy3492 posted...

If Biden starts spouting off misinformation on twitter you will be hard pressed to find anyone on "my side" who would be mad when he gets banned. Let's not pretend Trump was just talking about his thoughts on legislation.

Well considering a lot of the rules seem to be "if the mainstream left media says it's true, it can't possibly be disinformation, even if it's wrong." I think that might be hard.

Was anybody getting banned on twitter for saying "lab leak is impossible"? No, in fact the people saying the more true statement of "lab leak is plausible" were getting banned. Despite the fact that the latter is true and the former is false.

---

WingsOfGood posted...

Can I get fired at work for telling my boss I didn't vote for Trump or would my boss be violating the 1st amendment?

Last I checked, there was exactly one state in the US where jobs cannot discriminate against you based on your political opinions. Such a law is far more common outside the US, although almost anywhere such a law exists is still going to recognize the distinction between a legitimate political opinion and hate speech (which yes, your particular example is the former, but I'm just pre-empting the person who's inevitably going to otherwise feel the need to point that out).

---