4 ms·

They already have. Look at the coverage of the Epstein case. One of the reporters from a major network was told to shelve it when he was arrested in 2006. Or Ju

They already have. Look at the coverage of the Epstein case. One of the reporters from a major network was told to shelve it when he was arrested in 2006. Or Julian Assange: hardly covered his release at all, and never said anything about his years of detention without trial.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> Look at the coverage of the Epstein case Incessant. For true muzzling, it’s a honest debate about intentionally provocative political speech in the wake of Charlie Kirk. (TL; DR we learned nothing.)
- gosub100 1y ago
  Hate speech? I think the system is working as designed. You the the right to say whatever inflammatory rhetoric you want. What the 1A doesn't give you is the freedom from consequences of the hate speech. As we've seen this past week.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > the system is working as designed The founders didn’t envision speech being policed with guns. That is absolute nonsense. The system is clearly broken. That requires debate as to whether norms are failing to adequately police speech in an era of social media, and if the First Amendment’s idealistic vision of lawless self-regulation has failed. (Alternatively, how we can bring non-violent shame back into the envelope of norms.)
    - kasey_junk 1y ago
      Many of the founding fathers engaged in duels. I do t think they particularly wanted violent politics but they certainly lived in a world where what you said could get you killed by a gun.
    - gosub100 1y ago
      > The founders didn’t envision speech being policed with guns. That is absolute nonsense That's an absolute strawman. No provision in our government allows the use of force to counter ideological disagreement. What a bizarre thing to say.
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > That's an absolute strawman What did you mean when you responded to a comment about what happened to Charlie Kirk by talking about “the system…working as designed”?

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> Look at the coverage of the Epstein case Incessant. For true muzzling, it’s a honest debate about intentionally provocative political speech in the wake of Charlie Kirk. (TL; DR we learned nothing.)

gosub100 1y ago
Hate speech? I think the system is working as designed. You the the right to say whatever inflammatory rhetoric you want. What the 1A doesn't give you is the freedom from consequences of the hate speech. As we've seen this past week.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > the system is working as designed The founders didn’t envision speech being policed with guns. That is absolute nonsense. The system is clearly broken. That requires debate as to whether norms are failing to adequately police speech in an era of social media, and if the First Amendment’s idealistic vision of lawless self-regulation has failed. (Alternatively, how we can bring non-violent shame back into the envelope of norms.)
  - kasey_junk 1y ago
    Many of the founding fathers engaged in duels. I do t think they particularly wanted violent politics but they certainly lived in a world where what you said could get you killed by a gun.
  - gosub100 1y ago
    > The founders didn’t envision speech being policed with guns. That is absolute nonsense That's an absolute strawman. No provision in our government allows the use of force to counter ideological disagreement. What a bizarre thing to say.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > That's an absolute strawman What did you mean when you responded to a comment about what happened to Charlie Kirk by talking about “the system…working as designed”?