7 ms·

This is a really good compilation that should make any "free-speech absolutist" reconsider their support for the current administration. In my understanding, t

This is a really good compilation that should make any "free-speech absolutist" reconsider their support for the current administration. In my understanding, the commonplace interpretation of the first amendment is largely due to a series of landmark cases through the early to mid-20th century. A lot of expansions were provided to the amendment that have been taken for granted since then and we are now going to see challenged. We'll see how many hold in due time but I wouldn't put good odds on it.

p1necone 1y ago
I'm not really convinced more than a vanishingly small percentage of people who self identify as "free speech absolutists" are using that term in good faith. Freedom of speech is just the easiest way to have plausible deniability when directly or indirectly defending otherwise indefensible positions. Anecdotally I've noticed these sorts of people much less often, at least on here as of late. Methinks their deniability isn't so plausible any more.
- cyanydeez 1y ago
  Most of them seem more like "freedom to fraud" or "freedom to incite violence" and speech is just the medium they need to do it.
- echelon 1y ago
  The current administration does not support free speech for everyone. It's actively punishing free speech. You're right -- many people who claim to support free speech really mean they favor "free speech for me, not for thee." And typically these people want to be able to say controversial things without consequence. But how people respond to speech is orthogonal to whether or not we are allowed to exercise our rights to it. The ACLU did "free speech absolutism" right back in the 90's and 00's. They defended everyone's speech, no matter the politics, no matter how socially right or wrong it was [1]. They'd step up to bat for Democrats, Republicans, Christians, Atheists, and Satanists. Your views didn't matter. Defending the rights we all share was the point. Because when someone else's rights are degraded and not defended, it means everyone's rights are up for attack. Unfortunately the ACLU doesn't hold these same views today. They're batting for one team only. [1] They defended Westboro Baptist Church and NAMBLA, FFS. I definitely hate both of these organizations, but free speech is free speech. By defending even the most reprehensible speech, it ensures that mine remains free regardless of how the political pendulum swings. That's how it should be, anyway.
  - _emacsomancer_ 1y ago
    [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - least 1y ago
      The Paradox of tolerance almost never means what the person invoking it as a rebuttal to free speech thinks it means. It's not some moral axiom that demands action to shut down problematic speech whenever it happens. It's a concept that has varied views on to what extent should tolerance of intolerance be extended and to what response is appropriate when it extends beyonds that threshold. The most frequently quoted text I've seen is Karl Popper's writing, where he states that we must reserve the right to suppress intolerant philosophies, not that we should always suppress them. Now, some people might have the opinion that we should be completely intolerant to intolerance and that might be a defendable position in its own right, but the paradox of tolerance is not intrinsically condoning that sort of response.
      - _emacsomancer_ 1y ago
        > ....It's not some moral axiom that demands action to shut down problematic speech whenever it happens. No, that would probably end up in a logical paradox, if one were intolerant of any degree of intolerance. > It's a concept that has varied views on to what extent should tolerance of intolerance be extended and to what response is appropriate when it extends beyonds that threshold. I don't know enough to have a particular position on the ACLU, but at least in theory an organisation defending free speech might decide that conditions have become such that defending certain things will lead to the inability to defend other things and choose to proceed differently on that basis.
    - raxxorraxor 1y ago
      I think Popper would be quite sad with how people abuse his intend with stating it. Without a lot of context from Popper this principle isn't even a very good one and Popper certainly would agree here. It just displays that you didn't put time into it thinking it through, especially if you just distribute links.
- SpicyLemonZest 1y ago
  I don't think anyone identifies as "free speech absolutists" in the first place, except for Elon Musk one famous time. Strong free speech advocates remain about as common as they've always been, as far as I can tell - I suspect you just don't notice so much during times when the strongest threats to free speech are people and groups you're already inclined to oppose.
- slibhb 1y ago
  > Freedom of speech is just the easiest way to have plausible deniability when directly or indirectly defending otherwise indefensible positions. The idea that it's somehow suspicious to be in favor of free speech has got to be one of the worst developments in American politics. And, for whatever it's worth, every vocal "free speech person" I know doesn't like the current administation. Some people actually just have principles!
  - sapphicsnail 1y ago
    I have yet to see a free speech absolutist express concern about the government and media suppressing Gaza protestors or LGBTQ books being banned or anything else that affects the left. Doesn't seem very principled to me.
    - rtpg 1y ago
      I can't believe I'm going to say this but if you go over to reason.com and look at reporting on the visa stuff, there are a loooot of arguments going on in the comments. We're not even talking free speech absolutionists! Just like "normal"[0] conservatives being like "this is actually kind of messed up what's going on to these visa holders". Plenty of people happy to carry water for the admin as well. I just don't really have a great view of what people actually think about this issue. [0]: to be clear, I do not believe there are normal people on that website.
    - tetromino_ 1y ago
      > I have yet to see a free speech absolutist express concern ... Hi there. You are seeing one right now. Well, seeing the words of one. I am a free speech absolutist. What this administration is doing is abominable. I have always seen anti-Israeli campus posters as idiots, but Trump's crackdown on them is, imho, unconstitutional and immoral.
      - h0l0cube 1y ago
        > anti-Israeli campus posters as idiots The problem with free speech absolutism is that it leads to the 'paradox of tolerance'. We are now seeing the fruits of that line of thinking. > The paradox of tolerance is a philosophical concept suggesting that if a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance; thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- soulofmischief 1y ago
  I know it's not your intention, but don't allow these people to control your perception of free speech advocates such that you're making blanket statements about them that might in turn color someone else's perception. They're hiding behind real free speech advocates, and powerful people are counting on stochastic comments like this one to help confuse the public.
- jmyeet 1y ago
  The only free speech absolutist in America is Noam Chomsky. He's the only one. Whenever conservatives talk about "free speech" just substitute "hate speech" because that's what they mean. Elon Musk has called himself a free speech absolutist while banning people from Twitter for hurting his feelings, for being journalists who are remotely critical of him, for making fun of him, for reporting ATC public data on the location of his private jet and for making jokes. The media is absolutely complicit in not challenging the countless lies told by Republicans. What didn't get a lot of attention is how Trump sued a bunch of media outlets (eg ABC/Disney) to defamation. These are cases he absolutely could not win on the merits. ABC presenter George Stephanopoulos made the on-air claim Trump was "liable for rape" after he lost the E. Jean Carroll case. Disney agreed to pay ~$16 million in what has all the apperances of a payoff.
  - mitthrowaway2 1y ago
    It's pretty amazing that out of 350 million people in the United States, the only one who is a free speech absolutist happens to be someone I've heard of.
- lovich 1y ago
  >Anecdotally I've noticed these sorts of people much less often, at least on here as of late. Methinks their deniability isn't so plausible any more. They don't need to do any denials anymore because they have won. That was part of arguing in bad faith, they never actually believed the arguments. Nothing being discussed on a message board is going to change that
- generalizations 1y ago
  > Anecdotally I've noticed these sorts of people much less often, at least on here as of late. Methinks their deniability isn't so plausible any more. Been a lot more hysterical on here as of late. Methinks there's less reason to discuss political things now.
- raxxorraxor 1y ago
  I don't think it fits completely, but for the sake of it, I am a free speech absolutist. I live in Europe for context. Your insinuations isn't really a good faith argument either but I gladly join that group of "these sorts of people" because they are obviously more sensible than the others.
throwawaymaths 1y ago
[flagged]
- LPisGood 1y ago
  This article is about the entire first amendment, which has to do with more than free speech.
  - throwawaymaths 1y ago
    transparency and the obligation to document did not really exist as concepts in statecraft when the first amendment was conceived. there is a very tenuous relationship with the right to petition. perhaps we should create an amendment enshrining those values (as some states have in their constutions) the best lede is the one where visas are being revoked. clear abuse of the amendment. even the libel ones, while shitty, seem in line with existing libel laws (and maybe it's worth a discussion if libel is constitutionally protected). just because the president is president does not mean they must relinquish the right to legal redress for existing protections that the rest of us enjoy.
    - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
      > there is a very tenuous relationship with the right to petition. perhaps we should create an amendment enshrining those values The USA already did: The first amendment literally includes the right to petition one's government, along with the other rights listed in the article as section headers. > just because the president is president does not mean they must relinquish the right to legal redress for existing protections that the rest of us enjoy. Libel of public figures literally requires a higher standard than "the rest of us".
      - throwawaymaths 1y ago
        > The USA already did: you missed my point, clearly. if FOIA protects a current constitutional right, it is at best the tenth amendment, not the first. > Libel of public figures literally requires a higher standard than "the rest of us". to the point where the right to redress is abrogated?
RachelF 1y ago
One thing not on the list (yet) is the freezing of protesters' bank accounts that happened in Canada. Or the de-banking that happens to politicians in the UK. Or the jailing of whistleblower lawyers that happens in Australia.
- russelg 1y ago
  I wonder what any of those have to do with a USA constitutional matter?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- PieTime 1y ago
  I agree, but I think these countries don’t actually have free speech. I don’t care if I disagree with these positions. I will protest to defend their right to say it, otherwise I will lose mine as well.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
getnormality 1y ago
I would prefer a higher signal to noise ratio. For example, Radio Free Asia is a project of the federal government. Defunding it is a political decision. Freedom of the press does not mean the government is obligated to fund media nonprofits it has funded in the past. If those sounding alarms don't distinguish between political decisions they disagree with and violations of our rights, they will lose credibility ala Boy Who Cried Wolf, and struggle to mobilize people when it really matters.
- someothherguyy 1y ago
  RFA is funded by USAGM a independent agency of the US federal government. Do you argue against the idea of an independent agency? Are you saying its dismantlement was legal? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Agency_for_Global_Media https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Agency_for_Global_Media https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_federal_government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_Un...
  - ralfd 1y ago
    > In June 2018, President Trump announced his intention to nominate documentary film producer Michael Pack to head the agency. He was confirmed by the Senate two years later, and served from June 5, 2020 until January 20, 2021, when he was asked to resign at the request of newly-inaugurated President Joe Biden. Doesnt sound very independent to me if the President can exchange the agency head.
    - someothherguyy 1y ago
      Some history there: https://www.rferl.org/a/obama-signs-law-restructuring-us-international-media-voa-rferl-board-governors/28194511.html https://www.rferl.org/a/obama-signs-law-restructuring-us-int...
  - getnormality 1y ago
    No, I'm not opining here on whether stopping RFA is legal or a good idea. I'm only saying that I don't think it's an attack on the freedom of the press when the president stops funding media organizations, even if it's because of their viewpoint. I think the concept of freedom of the press was created to protect press organizations that are actually independent of the government from government interference. It cannot plausibly or sustainably extend to a government funding entitlement. If it did, it would mean perpetual entanglement of our precious universal, politically neutral liberal protections with the eternal mud-wrestling match of partisan politics. If USAGM is entitled to funding by act of Congress, I consider that a separate issue from First Amendment freedom of the press.
brightball 1y ago
I just wish there was always this much interest in free speech. The level of care in most circles tends to sway based on who is in office.
donatj 1y ago
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances Read that, please. I'd consider myself a free speech absolutist and I don't really agree. I feel like most of the list falls into "bad legal takes" category as almost nothing on the list has anything to do with the first amendment at all. The freedom of the press category basically amounts to slander having never been protected speech. You can sue for slander. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/defamation-and-false-statements-overview https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/d... The freedom of speech category in the article is largely a big nothing burger. Government employees have never had freedom in what they say while acting as government employees. That can say whatever they want on their own time given they're not releasing protected information. That one's been settled by supreme Court a number of times. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/547/410/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/547/410/ The government gets say over what data it releases. There's nothing in in the first amendment guaranteeing government releases of data. That's just bizarre to even think of as a first amendment issue at all. The first amendment protects the people from censorship, nothing in the amendment protects the government from censorship by the government. I literally struggle to see how just about anything in the article relates to the actual protections the first amendment provides whatsoever. The freedom of religion section seems like we're moving more in line with the constitution by removing special protections for religious institutions? Religious institutions having special protections seems like a pretty clear violation of the first amendment. I don't see why a church/mosque/temple should be any different as far as the government is involved than a Footlocker. By literal definition religion shouldn't get special treatment. Separation of church and state.
- ooterness 1y ago
  > Meanwhile, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents have been detaining and trying to deport pro-Palestinian students who are legally in the United States. The administration is targeting students and academics who spoke out against Israel’s attacks on Gaza, or who were active in campus protests against U.S. support for the attacks. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters Thursday that at least 300 foreign students have seen their visas revoked under President Trump, a far higher number than was previously known. How is "deportation without a trial" not a deliberate attack on people exercising their constitutional right to free speech?
TacticalCoder 1y ago
[dead]
protocolture 1y ago
Theres no such thing as a free speech absolutist. Supposed free speech absolutists demand reversals of bans from platforms for people due to hate speech. Not 1 is demanding the same for spammers or fraudsters.
- acidmath 1y ago
  A libertarian will argue that fraud is an act that is not the same as free speech and hence is not covered by free speech. I don't agree with the libertarian viewpoints overall, however I will acknowledge they have a point about the distinction between those two things.
  - cycomanic 1y ago
    And what is spam? I can acknowledge fraud not being free speech (although it's a stretch as well), i.e. it's intended to harm (again one could argue about a lot of other speech as well), but how can they make the same argument for spam?
    - protocolture 1y ago
      Spam is literally commerce. But almost every platform acknowledges it needs to be removed because its unwanted.
      - cycomanic 1y ago
        I'm not asking what spam is, I'm well aware. We are in a discussion about free speech absolutism. Somebody who says they are a free speech absolutist who supports spam filtering, needs to either justify why spam is not speech (which is my question, why would it not be speech), or acknowledge that they agree there are limits to free speech. Or is your argument that if it is commerce it's not free speech? That would allow all commerce to be censored (and we just kick the can down the road, what is commerce).
        protocolture 1y ago
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
raxxorraxor 1y ago
The problem isn't that the current US administration is seen as a good protector of freedom of speech. It is that its opposition dropped the ball on it so massively. With support of the now decried platforms, the slogan "there is no freedom of speech without consequences" comes to mind. Helping corporations "clean house" against all the undesirables, people that "hate". This again points at the Trump administration and how bad it would be. That isn't really a convincing message, it is that it opposition needs to rethink some arguments of the past.
dragonwriter 1y ago
> This is a really good compilation that should make any "free-speech absolutist" reconsider their support for the current administration. The adoption of the "free speech absolutist" brand by certain elements of the Right was never an honest statement of ideology, it was a smokescreen of Orwellian doublespeak for efforts to impose right-wing bias on platforms both by platform owners and by government regulatory efforts. Those people aren't going to reconsider their support for this administration because it isn't actually committed to free speech, because it is doing what the "free speech absolutist" label they adopted was always cover for. > In my understanding, the commonplace interpretation of the first amendment is largely due to a series of landmark cases through the early to mid-20th century. The one thing that the "free speech absolutist" Right-wing crowd was always honest about was that their position had nothing to do with "commonplace interpretation of the first amendment". (
- calf 1y ago
  Then the center-left Democrat progressives need to stop discussing the term "free speech absolutism" because it conceptually muddies the water. Leftists believe in free speech, freedom of inquiry, freedom of the press, even "burden of proof beyond doubt"--these are all liberal ideas. There's a mainstream pseudo-left that has decided to dispense with all nuance of these basic liberal values, and that is far worse in the long run, because that is happening inside the house, in service of Democrat elites. It's like internalized oppression: the fascists and reactionaries are so bad, that we've decided to forget our own principles.
  - raxxorraxor 1y ago
    You see the same thing in this thread. People mock free speech absolutists because Musk may have trolled them a year ago. I believe this overall ineptitude will indeed not work in their favor and it is just a form of primitive reactionism.
    - spiderfarmer 1y ago
      Do we deride free speech absolutists simply because Musk might have trolled us? Is that truly a reasonable explanation for anyone's motivations? Would you be so petty as to base your principles on that idea? No. Our criticism is aimed at their inability to defend their own values, leading to fruitless debates and real-world situations where shameless hypocrisy undercuts everything they claim to support.

p1necone 1y ago

I'm not really convinced more than a vanishingly small percentage of people who self identify as "free speech absolutists" are using that term in good faith. Freedom of speech is just the easiest way to have plausible deniability when directly or indirectly defending otherwise indefensible positions. Anecdotally I've noticed these sorts of people much less often, at least on here as of late. Methinks their deniability isn't so plausible any more.

cyanydeez 1y ago
Most of them seem more like "freedom to fraud" or "freedom to incite violence" and speech is just the medium they need to do it.
echelon 1y ago
The current administration does not support free speech for everyone. It's actively punishing free speech. You're right -- many people who claim to support free speech really mean they favor "free speech for me, not for thee." And typically these people want to be able to say controversial things without consequence. But how people respond to speech is orthogonal to whether or not we are allowed to exercise our rights to it. The ACLU did "free speech absolutism" right back in the 90's and 00's. They defended everyone's speech, no matter the politics, no matter how socially right or wrong it was [1]. They'd step up to bat for Democrats, Republicans, Christians, Atheists, and Satanists. Your views didn't matter. Defending the rights we all share was the point. Because when someone else's rights are degraded and not defended, it means everyone's rights are up for attack. Unfortunately the ACLU doesn't hold these same views today. They're batting for one team only. [1] They defended Westboro Baptist Church and NAMBLA, FFS. I definitely hate both of these organizations, but free speech is free speech. By defending even the most reprehensible speech, it ensures that mine remains free regardless of how the political pendulum swings. That's how it should be, anyway.
- _emacsomancer_ 1y ago
  [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - least 1y ago
    The Paradox of tolerance almost never means what the person invoking it as a rebuttal to free speech thinks it means. It's not some moral axiom that demands action to shut down problematic speech whenever it happens. It's a concept that has varied views on to what extent should tolerance of intolerance be extended and to what response is appropriate when it extends beyonds that threshold. The most frequently quoted text I've seen is Karl Popper's writing, where he states that we must reserve the right to suppress intolerant philosophies, not that we should always suppress them. Now, some people might have the opinion that we should be completely intolerant to intolerance and that might be a defendable position in its own right, but the paradox of tolerance is not intrinsically condoning that sort of response.
    - _emacsomancer_ 1y ago
      > ....It's not some moral axiom that demands action to shut down problematic speech whenever it happens. No, that would probably end up in a logical paradox, if one were intolerant of any degree of intolerance. > It's a concept that has varied views on to what extent should tolerance of intolerance be extended and to what response is appropriate when it extends beyonds that threshold. I don't know enough to have a particular position on the ACLU, but at least in theory an organisation defending free speech might decide that conditions have become such that defending certain things will lead to the inability to defend other things and choose to proceed differently on that basis.
  - raxxorraxor 1y ago
    I think Popper would be quite sad with how people abuse his intend with stating it. Without a lot of context from Popper this principle isn't even a very good one and Popper certainly would agree here. It just displays that you didn't put time into it thinking it through, especially if you just distribute links.
SpicyLemonZest 1y ago
I don't think anyone identifies as "free speech absolutists" in the first place, except for Elon Musk one famous time. Strong free speech advocates remain about as common as they've always been, as far as I can tell - I suspect you just don't notice so much during times when the strongest threats to free speech are people and groups you're already inclined to oppose.
slibhb 1y ago
> Freedom of speech is just the easiest way to have plausible deniability when directly or indirectly defending otherwise indefensible positions. The idea that it's somehow suspicious to be in favor of free speech has got to be one of the worst developments in American politics. And, for whatever it's worth, every vocal "free speech person" I know doesn't like the current administation. Some people actually just have principles!
- sapphicsnail 1y ago
  I have yet to see a free speech absolutist express concern about the government and media suppressing Gaza protestors or LGBTQ books being banned or anything else that affects the left. Doesn't seem very principled to me.
  - rtpg 1y ago
    I can't believe I'm going to say this but if you go over to reason.com and look at reporting on the visa stuff, there are a loooot of arguments going on in the comments. We're not even talking free speech absolutionists! Just like "normal"[0] conservatives being like "this is actually kind of messed up what's going on to these visa holders". Plenty of people happy to carry water for the admin as well. I just don't really have a great view of what people actually think about this issue. [0]: to be clear, I do not believe there are normal people on that website.
  - tetromino_ 1y ago
    > I have yet to see a free speech absolutist express concern ... Hi there. You are seeing one right now. Well, seeing the words of one. I am a free speech absolutist. What this administration is doing is abominable. I have always seen anti-Israeli campus posters as idiots, but Trump's crackdown on them is, imho, unconstitutional and immoral.
    - h0l0cube 1y ago
      > anti-Israeli campus posters as idiots The problem with free speech absolutism is that it leads to the 'paradox of tolerance'. We are now seeing the fruits of that line of thinking. > The paradox of tolerance is a philosophical concept suggesting that if a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance; thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
soulofmischief 1y ago
I know it's not your intention, but don't allow these people to control your perception of free speech advocates such that you're making blanket statements about them that might in turn color someone else's perception. They're hiding behind real free speech advocates, and powerful people are counting on stochastic comments like this one to help confuse the public.
jmyeet 1y ago
The only free speech absolutist in America is Noam Chomsky. He's the only one. Whenever conservatives talk about "free speech" just substitute "hate speech" because that's what they mean. Elon Musk has called himself a free speech absolutist while banning people from Twitter for hurting his feelings, for being journalists who are remotely critical of him, for making fun of him, for reporting ATC public data on the location of his private jet and for making jokes. The media is absolutely complicit in not challenging the countless lies told by Republicans. What didn't get a lot of attention is how Trump sued a bunch of media outlets (eg ABC/Disney) to defamation. These are cases he absolutely could not win on the merits. ABC presenter George Stephanopoulos made the on-air claim Trump was "liable for rape" after he lost the E. Jean Carroll case. Disney agreed to pay ~$16 million in what has all the apperances of a payoff.
- mitthrowaway2 1y ago
  It's pretty amazing that out of 350 million people in the United States, the only one who is a free speech absolutist happens to be someone I've heard of.
lovich 1y ago
>Anecdotally I've noticed these sorts of people much less often, at least on here as of late. Methinks their deniability isn't so plausible any more. They don't need to do any denials anymore because they have won. That was part of arguing in bad faith, they never actually believed the arguments. Nothing being discussed on a message board is going to change that
generalizations 1y ago
> Anecdotally I've noticed these sorts of people much less often, at least on here as of late. Methinks their deniability isn't so plausible any more. Been a lot more hysterical on here as of late. Methinks there's less reason to discuss political things now.
raxxorraxor 1y ago
I don't think it fits completely, but for the sake of it, I am a free speech absolutist. I live in Europe for context. Your insinuations isn't really a good faith argument either but I gladly join that group of "these sorts of people" because they are obviously more sensible than the others.

throwawaymaths 1y ago

[flagged]

LPisGood 1y ago
This article is about the entire first amendment, which has to do with more than free speech.
- throwawaymaths 1y ago
  transparency and the obligation to document did not really exist as concepts in statecraft when the first amendment was conceived. there is a very tenuous relationship with the right to petition. perhaps we should create an amendment enshrining those values (as some states have in their constutions) the best lede is the one where visas are being revoked. clear abuse of the amendment. even the libel ones, while shitty, seem in line with existing libel laws (and maybe it's worth a discussion if libel is constitutionally protected). just because the president is president does not mean they must relinquish the right to legal redress for existing protections that the rest of us enjoy.
  - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
    > there is a very tenuous relationship with the right to petition. perhaps we should create an amendment enshrining those values The USA already did: The first amendment literally includes the right to petition one's government, along with the other rights listed in the article as section headers. > just because the president is president does not mean they must relinquish the right to legal redress for existing protections that the rest of us enjoy. Libel of public figures literally requires a higher standard than "the rest of us".
    - throwawaymaths 1y ago
      > The USA already did: you missed my point, clearly. if FOIA protects a current constitutional right, it is at best the tenth amendment, not the first. > Libel of public figures literally requires a higher standard than "the rest of us". to the point where the right to redress is abrogated?

RachelF 1y ago

One thing not on the list (yet) is the freezing of protesters' bank accounts that happened in Canada. Or the de-banking that happens to politicians in the UK. Or the jailing of whistleblower lawyers that happens in Australia.

russelg 1y ago
I wonder what any of those have to do with a USA constitutional matter?
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
PieTime 1y ago
I agree, but I think these countries don’t actually have free speech. I don’t care if I disagree with these positions. I will protest to defend their right to say it, otherwise I will lose mine as well.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

getnormality 1y ago

I would prefer a higher signal to noise ratio. For example, Radio Free Asia is a project of the federal government. Defunding it is a political decision. Freedom of the press does not mean the government is obligated to fund media nonprofits it has funded in the past. If those sounding alarms don't distinguish between political decisions they disagree with and violations of our rights, they will lose credibility ala Boy Who Cried Wolf, and struggle to mobilize people when it really matters.

someothherguyy 1y ago
RFA is funded by USAGM a independent agency of the US federal government. Do you argue against the idea of an independent agency? Are you saying its dismantlement was legal? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Agency_for_Global_Media https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Agency_for_Global_Media https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_federal_government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_Un...
- ralfd 1y ago
  > In June 2018, President Trump announced his intention to nominate documentary film producer Michael Pack to head the agency. He was confirmed by the Senate two years later, and served from June 5, 2020 until January 20, 2021, when he was asked to resign at the request of newly-inaugurated President Joe Biden. Doesnt sound very independent to me if the President can exchange the agency head.
  - someothherguyy 1y ago
    Some history there: https://www.rferl.org/a/obama-signs-law-restructuring-us-international-media-voa-rferl-board-governors/28194511.html https://www.rferl.org/a/obama-signs-law-restructuring-us-int...
- getnormality 1y ago
  No, I'm not opining here on whether stopping RFA is legal or a good idea. I'm only saying that I don't think it's an attack on the freedom of the press when the president stops funding media organizations, even if it's because of their viewpoint. I think the concept of freedom of the press was created to protect press organizations that are actually independent of the government from government interference. It cannot plausibly or sustainably extend to a government funding entitlement. If it did, it would mean perpetual entanglement of our precious universal, politically neutral liberal protections with the eternal mud-wrestling match of partisan politics. If USAGM is entitled to funding by act of Congress, I consider that a separate issue from First Amendment freedom of the press.

brightball 1y ago

I just wish there was always this much interest in free speech. The level of care in most circles tends to sway based on who is in office.

donatj 1y ago

> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances Read that, please. I'd consider myself a free speech absolutist and I don't really agree. I feel like most of the list falls into "bad legal takes" category as almost nothing on the list has anything to do with the first amendment at all. The freedom of the press category basically amounts to slander having never been protected speech. You can sue for slander. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/defamation-and-false-statements-overview https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/d... The freedom of speech category in the article is largely a big nothing burger. Government employees have never had freedom in what they say while acting as government employees. That can say whatever they want on their own time given they're not releasing protected information. That one's been settled by supreme Court a number of times. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/547/410/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/547/410/ The government gets say over what data it releases. There's nothing in in the first amendment guaranteeing government releases of data. That's just bizarre to even think of as a first amendment issue at all. The first amendment protects the people from censorship, nothing in the amendment protects the government from censorship by the government. I literally struggle to see how just about anything in the article relates to the actual protections the first amendment provides whatsoever. The freedom of religion section seems like we're moving more in line with the constitution by removing special protections for religious institutions? Religious institutions having special protections seems like a pretty clear violation of the first amendment. I don't see why a church/mosque/temple should be any different as far as the government is involved than a Footlocker. By literal definition religion shouldn't get special treatment. Separation of church and state.

ooterness 1y ago
> Meanwhile, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents have been detaining and trying to deport pro-Palestinian students who are legally in the United States. The administration is targeting students and academics who spoke out against Israel’s attacks on Gaza, or who were active in campus protests against U.S. support for the attacks. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters Thursday that at least 300 foreign students have seen their visas revoked under President Trump, a far higher number than was previously known. How is "deportation without a trial" not a deliberate attack on people exercising their constitutional right to free speech?

TacticalCoder 1y ago

[dead]

protocolture 1y ago

Theres no such thing as a free speech absolutist. Supposed free speech absolutists demand reversals of bans from platforms for people due to hate speech. Not 1 is demanding the same for spammers or fraudsters.

acidmath 1y ago
A libertarian will argue that fraud is an act that is not the same as free speech and hence is not covered by free speech. I don't agree with the libertarian viewpoints overall, however I will acknowledge they have a point about the distinction between those two things.
- cycomanic 1y ago
  And what is spam? I can acknowledge fraud not being free speech (although it's a stretch as well), i.e. it's intended to harm (again one could argue about a lot of other speech as well), but how can they make the same argument for spam?
  - protocolture 1y ago
    Spam is literally commerce. But almost every platform acknowledges it needs to be removed because its unwanted.
    - cycomanic 1y ago
      I'm not asking what spam is, I'm well aware. We are in a discussion about free speech absolutism. Somebody who says they are a free speech absolutist who supports spam filtering, needs to either justify why spam is not speech (which is my question, why would it not be speech), or acknowledge that they agree there are limits to free speech. Or is your argument that if it is commerce it's not free speech? That would allow all commerce to be censored (and we just kick the can down the road, what is commerce).
      - protocolture 1y ago

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

raxxorraxor 1y ago

The problem isn't that the current US administration is seen as a good protector of freedom of speech. It is that its opposition dropped the ball on it so massively. With support of the now decried platforms, the slogan "there is no freedom of speech without consequences" comes to mind. Helping corporations "clean house" against all the undesirables, people that "hate". This again points at the Trump administration and how bad it would be. That isn't really a convincing message, it is that it opposition needs to rethink some arguments of the past.

dragonwriter 1y ago

> This is a really good compilation that should make any "free-speech absolutist" reconsider their support for the current administration. The adoption of the "free speech absolutist" brand by certain elements of the Right was never an honest statement of ideology, it was a smokescreen of Orwellian doublespeak for efforts to impose right-wing bias on platforms both by platform owners and by government regulatory efforts. Those people aren't going to reconsider their support for this administration because it isn't actually committed to free speech, because it is doing what the "free speech absolutist" label they adopted was always cover for. > In my understanding, the commonplace interpretation of the first amendment is largely due to a series of landmark cases through the early to mid-20th century. The one thing that the "free speech absolutist" Right-wing crowd was always honest about was that their position had nothing to do with "commonplace interpretation of the first amendment". (

calf 1y ago
Then the center-left Democrat progressives need to stop discussing the term "free speech absolutism" because it conceptually muddies the water. Leftists believe in free speech, freedom of inquiry, freedom of the press, even "burden of proof beyond doubt"--these are all liberal ideas. There's a mainstream pseudo-left that has decided to dispense with all nuance of these basic liberal values, and that is far worse in the long run, because that is happening inside the house, in service of Democrat elites. It's like internalized oppression: the fascists and reactionaries are so bad, that we've decided to forget our own principles.
- raxxorraxor 1y ago
  You see the same thing in this thread. People mock free speech absolutists because Musk may have trolled them a year ago. I believe this overall ineptitude will indeed not work in their favor and it is just a form of primitive reactionism.
  - spiderfarmer 1y ago
    Do we deride free speech absolutists simply because Musk might have trolled us? Is that truly a reasonable explanation for anyone's motivations? Would you be so petty as to base your principles on that idea? No. Our criticism is aimed at their inability to defend their own values, leading to fruitless debates and real-world situations where shameless hypocrisy undercuts everything they claim to support.