4 ms·

"Whining about other people having different views" accounts for pretty much all political speech, and I don't understand why you're saying it shouldn't happen

"Whining about other people having different views" accounts for pretty much all political speech, and I don't understand why you're saying it shouldn't happen on this topic.

llamaimperative 2y ago
If you believe 1st Amendment protections extend to prevent censorship from private parties, as Elon et al claim to, then banning this material is unambiguously a violation of free speech. If you don’t believe that’s what free speech is, then that’s fine too (and you’re right), but then stop using that as a cultural cudgel.
- listenallyall 2y ago
  The First Amendment most certainly does not apply to private parties.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    Correct. Which is why the right wing moaning about free speech with regard to content moderation is juvenile and, as OP illustrates, completely hypocritical.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- ToValueFunfetti 2y ago
  I do agree that this is unambiguously a violation of free speech, though the first amendment doesn't enter into it. What I don't get is the last bit, which you've only restated- why shouldn't people be allowed to invoke free speech on the basis of their opinions on what it means?
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    Because at least in America “free speech” refers to 1st Amendment protections, which this does not violate. “Free speech” does not mean “carte blanche protection from any repercussions from anything I say, everyone is still obligated to like me and be nice to me and do business with me.”
    - ToValueFunfetti 2y ago
      So when the first amendment says congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech, that's self-referential and does not refer to an underlying basic human right? Or are you saying that Americans just don't care about why the bill of rights exists anymore because the constitution is now their sole source of morality?
      - intermerda 2y ago
        For 33-45% Americans, the only source of morality is what the Orange Dear Leader says. That's why they are fine with supporting a candidate who openly calls for jailing people who criticize the Supreme Court judges and wanted to shoot protesters in legs.
      - klyrs 2y ago
        Crux of the problem: > everyone is still obligated to like me and be nice to me and do business with me. That takes force. You can't ask the government to protect you from the consequences of your speech, because that violates the free association of others.
        llamaimperative 2y ago
        Correct^ In fact, even more philosophically, the marketplace of ideas needs ways to select ideas. The bad way to apply selection pressure is with the state (thus the 1st Amendment). The good way to apply selection pressure is to have other people tell you you are an absolute fucking moron and refuse to associate with you. That's what free speech really looks like.
        ToValueFunfetti 2y ago

"Whining about other people having different views" accounts for pretty much all political speech, and I don't understand why you're saying it shouldn't happen on this topic.

llamaimperative 2y ago

If you believe 1st Amendment protections extend to prevent censorship from private parties, as Elon et al claim to, then banning this material is unambiguously a violation of free speech. If you don’t believe that’s what free speech is, then that’s fine too (and you’re right), but then stop using that as a cultural cudgel.

listenallyall 2y ago
The First Amendment most certainly does not apply to private parties.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  Correct. Which is why the right wing moaning about free speech with regard to content moderation is juvenile and, as OP illustrates, completely hypocritical.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
ToValueFunfetti 2y ago
I do agree that this is unambiguously a violation of free speech, though the first amendment doesn't enter into it. What I don't get is the last bit, which you've only restated- why shouldn't people be allowed to invoke free speech on the basis of their opinions on what it means?
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  Because at least in America “free speech” refers to 1st Amendment protections, which this does not violate. “Free speech” does not mean “carte blanche protection from any repercussions from anything I say, everyone is still obligated to like me and be nice to me and do business with me.”
  - ToValueFunfetti 2y ago
    So when the first amendment says congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech, that's self-referential and does not refer to an underlying basic human right? Or are you saying that Americans just don't care about why the bill of rights exists anymore because the constitution is now their sole source of morality?
    - intermerda 2y ago
      For 33-45% Americans, the only source of morality is what the Orange Dear Leader says. That's why they are fine with supporting a candidate who openly calls for jailing people who criticize the Supreme Court judges and wanted to shoot protesters in legs.
    - klyrs 2y ago
      Crux of the problem: > everyone is still obligated to like me and be nice to me and do business with me. That takes force. You can't ask the government to protect you from the consequences of your speech, because that violates the free association of others.
      - llamaimperative 2y ago
        Correct^ In fact, even more philosophically, the marketplace of ideas needs ways to select ideas. The bad way to apply selection pressure is with the state (thus the 1st Amendment). The good way to apply selection pressure is to have other people tell you you are an absolute fucking moron and refuse to associate with you. That's what free speech really looks like.
      - ToValueFunfetti 2y ago