4 ms·

Because freedom of speech has never been quite what it says. It is basically only immunity from consequences for the rich and powerful. Only they're allowed to

by jgeada 4y ago

Because freedom of speech has never been quite what it says. It is basically only immunity from consequences for the rich and powerful. Only they're allowed to have substantive influential speech without consequences, and only they are allowed to reclassify bribery as "speech". Anybody not in that set saying something the rich and powerful don't agree with gets sued into oblivion and/or gets their soap box taken away. All that is happening is that people want everyone to live by the same rules. Either nobody has consequences or everybody can have the soapbox taken away if the general public doesn't agree with them. Billionaires have been too blatant with media manipulation for everyone else to be OK with the rules as they are. BTW I'd also note that "free speech" American style is almost like a religion, you can't argue against it. I'd just note that no other country Europe (or the world) subscribes to this absolutist version of free speech. So it is reasonable that questions ensue questioning how great this "free speech" really is. Is lying by corporations really speech?

mlindner 4y ago
This is a great post illustrative of the currently widespread misunderstanding of freedom of speech in the US. It's not about the powerless wanting to control the speech of the rich and powerful. It's about the powerful of one side wanting to control the speech of the powerful of the other side by weaponizing ignorant masses of the populace to do their fight for them in defeating the ability of their opponents to have speech. It's a scary precedent and even more scary that so many don't see what's happening. > Billionaires have been too blatant with media manipulation for everyone else to be OK with the rules as they are. The powerful have controlled the media in the past WAY more than they do now or even in recent decades. Even the people gaining control of the media recently are outside of the normal historical rich as they're all of the nouveau riche class. This is all one more example of the recent trend of not wanting to bring UP the less privileged but to tear DOWN the privileged to the level of the less privileged. The former is beneficial for society the latter is self-destructive. The result of lack of speech is violence. If people (parts of the rich) can't voice their opinion with words they do so with actions by galvanizing people into violent actions.
JackFr 4y ago
> It is basically only immunity from consequences for the rich and powerful. Only they're allowed to have substantive influential speech without consequences, and only they are allowed to reclassify bribery as "speech". This is simply not true and I'm curious if you have any examples to support this. > Anybody not in that set saying something the rich and powerful don't agree with gets sued into oblivion and/or gets their soap box taken away. Again that is simply not true. In fact compared with the UK for instance it is _far_ harder to sue for libel or defamation in the US. > Billionaires have been too blatant with media manipulation for everyone else to be OK with the rules as they are. Rich people have access to resources the poor don't. That's not new. > BTW I'd also note that "free speech" American style is almost like a religion, you can't argue against it. I'd just note that no other country Europe (or the world) subscribes to this absolutist version of free speech. In general we are free speech absolutists. Honestly along with fast food, very entertaining movies and our love affair with guns it's quintessentially American.
- mythrwy 4y ago
  Sadly our movies have gotten much less entertaining over the past 10 years. The fast food and guns are still doing well though!
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
lliamander 4y ago
Could you please provide specific examples of how this current trend of wanting to outlaw hate speech, "disinformation", etc., applies to billionaires, rather than the common people? "Free speech absolutism" is a nonsensical slur. There are sensible restrictions on the freedom of speech that have been engrained into American jurisprudence. There actually used to be more exceptions (for instance, anti-war speech was illegal during World War 1) but, to their credit, the political left pushed for expanding those rights. But yes, we do take our free speech with religious seriousness. That is because many of our ancestors came here to escape religious persecution from Europe (and other places). We do not wish to return to the bad old days where our beliefs could again be criminalized.

by jgeada 4y ago

mlindner 4y ago

This is a great post illustrative of the currently widespread misunderstanding of freedom of speech in the US. It's not about the powerless wanting to control the speech of the rich and powerful. It's about the powerful of one side wanting to control the speech of the powerful of the other side by weaponizing ignorant masses of the populace to do their fight for them in defeating the ability of their opponents to have speech. It's a scary precedent and even more scary that so many don't see what's happening. > Billionaires have been too blatant with media manipulation for everyone else to be OK with the rules as they are. The powerful have controlled the media in the past WAY more than they do now or even in recent decades. Even the people gaining control of the media recently are outside of the normal historical rich as they're all of the nouveau riche class. This is all one more example of the recent trend of not wanting to bring UP the less privileged but to tear DOWN the privileged to the level of the less privileged. The former is beneficial for society the latter is self-destructive. The result of lack of speech is violence. If people (parts of the rich) can't voice their opinion with words they do so with actions by galvanizing people into violent actions.

JackFr 4y ago

> It is basically only immunity from consequences for the rich and powerful. Only they're allowed to have substantive influential speech without consequences, and only they are allowed to reclassify bribery as "speech". This is simply not true and I'm curious if you have any examples to support this. > Anybody not in that set saying something the rich and powerful don't agree with gets sued into oblivion and/or gets their soap box taken away. Again that is simply not true. In fact compared with the UK for instance it is _far_ harder to sue for libel or defamation in the US. > Billionaires have been too blatant with media manipulation for everyone else to be OK with the rules as they are. Rich people have access to resources the poor don't. That's not new. > BTW I'd also note that "free speech" American style is almost like a religion, you can't argue against it. I'd just note that no other country Europe (or the world) subscribes to this absolutist version of free speech. In general we are free speech absolutists. Honestly along with fast food, very entertaining movies and our love affair with guns it's quintessentially American.

mythrwy 4y ago
Sadly our movies have gotten much less entertaining over the past 10 years. The fast food and guns are still doing well though!
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

lliamander 4y ago

Could you please provide specific examples of how this current trend of wanting to outlaw hate speech, "disinformation", etc., applies to billionaires, rather than the common people? "Free speech absolutism" is a nonsensical slur. There are sensible restrictions on the freedom of speech that have been engrained into American jurisprudence. There actually used to be more exceptions (for instance, anti-war speech was illegal during World War 1) but, to their credit, the political left pushed for expanding those rights. But yes, we do take our free speech with religious seriousness. That is because many of our ancestors came here to escape religious persecution from Europe (and other places). We do not wish to return to the bad old days where our beliefs could again be criminalized.