3 ms·

You are falsely speaking of Federal Officials as if they are not acting in a government capacity, and therefore have their freedom of speech in that capacity pr

You are falsely speaking of Federal Officials as if they are not acting in a government capacity, and therefore have their freedom of speech in that capacity protected by the Constitution. The opposite is true. The Constitution's protection of individual citizen free speech very specifically is a restriction on the government (and its officials acting in government capacity, which is how the government speaks) from acting to limit the speech of citizens under most circumstances. Which is exactly the case in question. This is how Constitutional protections work. They limit the capacity of the government and its officials in order to protect the Rights of individual citizens. Case law has long held that even the politest censorship request by the government is viewed as threat of force. The propaganda around this issue is weak to the point of being insulting.

mrangle 3y ago
Below, I further frame the argument against the false-assertion that the government has free speech protections under the Constitution. The government is specifically restricted by the Constitution in order to convey Rights to citizens. Just as the FBI does not have Constitutionally protected free speech rights to request censorship of citizens, no matter how politely requested, the FBI can not legally "request of you" to report to prison for five years in the absence of being convicted of a crime. As any such request carries the presumption of force. This restriction protects the Constitutional Rights of citizens. I can request that you report to prison. That is protected speech. I can request that speech be censored. That is protected speech. Aside from my lack of power and potential force to be able to effect those outcomes, the Constitution also exists to protect individuals from my such requests should I, for instance, then drum up a mob (akin to a government) in order to try to intimidate or force results. The government is not an individual with Constitutional Rights. It is the entity that the Constitution exists to protect individuals against.

mrangle 3y ago

Below, I further frame the argument against the false-assertion that the government has free speech protections under the Constitution. The government is specifically restricted by the Constitution in order to convey Rights to citizens. Just as the FBI does not have Constitutionally protected free speech rights to request censorship of citizens, no matter how politely requested, the FBI can not legally "request of you" to report to prison for five years in the absence of being convicted of a crime. As any such request carries the presumption of force. This restriction protects the Constitutional Rights of citizens. I can request that you report to prison. That is protected speech. I can request that speech be censored. That is protected speech. Aside from my lack of power and potential force to be able to effect those outcomes, the Constitution also exists to protect individuals from my such requests should I, for instance, then drum up a mob (akin to a government) in order to try to intimidate or force results. The government is not an individual with Constitutional Rights. It is the entity that the Constitution exists to protect individuals against.