5 ms·

By the government?

pjc50 1y ago
No, but by Party supporters running campaigns against their employers. Or by the use of the administrative state to pressure the employers.
imcritic 1y ago
Even if gov isn't involved directly - it could very easily press some corps for such firings.
- baggachipz 1y ago
  As we've already seen.
ioasuncvinvaer 1y ago
Government officials are specifically calling for it.
ceejayoz 1y ago
In some cases, yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disciplinary_actions_for_commentary_on_the_assassination_of_Charlie_Kirk?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disciplinary_actions_for_comme... > Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that any non-citizens who celebrated Kirk's death would be immediately deported… > Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated on Katie Miller's podcast and in subsequent Department of Justice announcements that she intended to "target" speech against Kirk following his death as hate speech… Plus teachers in public schools and universities.
- viggity 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - ceejayoz 1y ago
    Except people are often being fired for quoting Charlie Kirk verbatim. The First Amendment doesn't apply to only citizens.
    - potato3732842 1y ago
      Is that supposed to be a problem or a counter point or something? It doesn't matter what ideological whims someone is espousing, people who hold discretionary authority backed by government violence ought to keep it in their pants.
      - ceejayoz 1y ago
        > people who hold discretionary authority backed by government violence ought to keep it in their pants That applies to violating the out-of-classroom First Amendment rights of publicly employed teachers by their publicly employed management at the urging of the federal government, too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_District https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independe... "The Court famously opined, 'It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.'"
        potato3732842 1y ago
        If an entry level commissioned officer can be expected to keep it in their pants than an entry level teacher can too. Yeah it's a first amendment issue depending on where through the gray area the line is drawn but the .gov runs right through the gray areas of violating rights all the time, I don't really see the big deal if it does it to it's own cogs.
        ceejayoz 1y ago
        There's a very, very long standing specific exception for members of the military (subject to the UCMJ) that is not present for teachers.
- southernplaces7 1y ago
  Since the very clear, repeatedly court-upheld, very specific wording of the 1st amendment protects free speech for anyone at all residing inside the United States (Yes, even including illegal immigrants, not to mention residents and visitors, though by voicing a politically disliked opinion they might risk becoming fast-track targets for deportation through other "formal" justifications) and also offers no legal classification for what exactly "hate speech" is, both of these lying, corrupt, inept, would-be parrots of Tinpot Trump are at least legally wrong. It's amusing on the one hand, considering the hatred their very boss and most of the MAGA types poured on cancel culture and its notions of speech that shouldn't be allowed as hate speech, only to now reveal one more show of whining, gross hypocrisy. On the other hand it's also deeply worrisome, to see key enforcers of federal U.S. law being so completely mendacious and cavalier about the actual legal part of their jobs in that very same territory.
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
    Cancel culture won. Conservatives are not being hypocritical for having been against it and now for it. If your opponent is using an effective weapon and you don't also pick up that weapon, you will lose.
    - theossuary 1y ago
      Republicans started cancel culture. It really gained steam in 2001 when they cancelled the Dixie Chicks for being anti-war (turns out they were right). So I guess you're right, the left adopted it after realizing they'd lose if they didn't use such an effective weapon against fascists.
      - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
        [flagged]
        ceejayoz 1y ago
        "When we do it, it doesn't count."
robmccoll 1y ago
I agree with you. I get tired of people complaining about "cancel culture" and the reactions of private individuals and groups to the opinions and actions of other private individuals and groups. People have the right to say what they want and to do what they want up to the limits of causing harm to others. They can shout their inflammatory opinions from the roof tops. They can boycott and petition to try to convince private groups from giving platform to opinions or people they don't like. All of that is protected speech. This current executive branch is weighing in and using its influence to try to control speech. It's not "you'll get disappeared by secret police for what you told your coworker in confidence" levels of control, but that it's happening at all is alarming. I worry that they have no problem trampling on the first amendment and that it seems like no part of the government is going to restrict them from it.
- freejazz 1y ago
  >"you'll get disappeared by secret police for what you told your coworker in confidence" Not if you aren't brown. But if you are... well you can easily get caught up in an "immigration" "sting"
  - robmccoll 1y ago
    Fair. That does seem to be happening unfortunately.
castis 1y ago
"Call them out, hell, call their employer" -JD Vance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngofqx9EfcM&t=7398s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngofqx9EfcM&t=7398s https://x.com/SecRubio/status/1967784061721776521 https://x.com/SecRubio/status/1967784061721776521 revoking visas
matusp 1y ago
Censorship in oppressive countries is often not carried out directly by the government. Instead, to save face, it is enforced along invisible power lines. The government gives a silent nod to other actors in society nudging them to act accordingly. For example, an Eastern Bloc citizen might not receive a formal penalty for leaving the communist party, but their children's admission to university could suddenly become more difficult, of course without any official acknowledgment of the fact.

By the government?

No, but by Party supporters running campaigns against their employers. Or by the use of the administrative state to pressure the employers.

imcritic 1y ago

Even if gov isn't involved directly - it could very easily press some corps for such firings.

baggachipz 1y ago
As we've already seen.

ioasuncvinvaer 1y ago

Government officials are specifically calling for it.

ceejayoz 1y ago

In some cases, yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disciplinary_actions_for_commentary_on_the_assassination_of_Charlie_Kirk?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disciplinary_actions_for_comme... > Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that any non-citizens who celebrated Kirk's death would be immediately deported… > Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated on Katie Miller's podcast and in subsequent Department of Justice announcements that she intended to "target" speech against Kirk following his death as hate speech… Plus teachers in public schools and universities.

viggity 1y ago
[flagged]
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  Except people are often being fired for quoting Charlie Kirk verbatim. The First Amendment doesn't apply to only citizens.
  - potato3732842 1y ago
    Is that supposed to be a problem or a counter point or something? It doesn't matter what ideological whims someone is espousing, people who hold discretionary authority backed by government violence ought to keep it in their pants.
    - ceejayoz 1y ago
      > people who hold discretionary authority backed by government violence ought to keep it in their pants That applies to violating the out-of-classroom First Amendment rights of publicly employed teachers by their publicly employed management at the urging of the federal government, too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_District https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independe... "The Court famously opined, 'It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.'"
      - potato3732842 1y ago
        If an entry level commissioned officer can be expected to keep it in their pants than an entry level teacher can too. Yeah it's a first amendment issue depending on where through the gray area the line is drawn but the .gov runs right through the gray areas of violating rights all the time, I don't really see the big deal if it does it to it's own cogs.
        ceejayoz 1y ago
        There's a very, very long standing specific exception for members of the military (subject to the UCMJ) that is not present for teachers.
southernplaces7 1y ago
Since the very clear, repeatedly court-upheld, very specific wording of the 1st amendment protects free speech for anyone at all residing inside the United States (Yes, even including illegal immigrants, not to mention residents and visitors, though by voicing a politically disliked opinion they might risk becoming fast-track targets for deportation through other "formal" justifications) and also offers no legal classification for what exactly "hate speech" is, both of these lying, corrupt, inept, would-be parrots of Tinpot Trump are at least legally wrong. It's amusing on the one hand, considering the hatred their very boss and most of the MAGA types poured on cancel culture and its notions of speech that shouldn't be allowed as hate speech, only to now reveal one more show of whining, gross hypocrisy. On the other hand it's also deeply worrisome, to see key enforcers of federal U.S. law being so completely mendacious and cavalier about the actual legal part of their jobs in that very same territory.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
  Cancel culture won. Conservatives are not being hypocritical for having been against it and now for it. If your opponent is using an effective weapon and you don't also pick up that weapon, you will lose.
  - theossuary 1y ago
    Republicans started cancel culture. It really gained steam in 2001 when they cancelled the Dixie Chicks for being anti-war (turns out they were right). So I guess you're right, the left adopted it after realizing they'd lose if they didn't use such an effective weapon against fascists.
    - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - ceejayoz 1y ago
        "When we do it, it doesn't count."

robmccoll 1y ago

I agree with you. I get tired of people complaining about "cancel culture" and the reactions of private individuals and groups to the opinions and actions of other private individuals and groups. People have the right to say what they want and to do what they want up to the limits of causing harm to others. They can shout their inflammatory opinions from the roof tops. They can boycott and petition to try to convince private groups from giving platform to opinions or people they don't like. All of that is protected speech. This current executive branch is weighing in and using its influence to try to control speech. It's not "you'll get disappeared by secret police for what you told your coworker in confidence" levels of control, but that it's happening at all is alarming. I worry that they have no problem trampling on the first amendment and that it seems like no part of the government is going to restrict them from it.

freejazz 1y ago
>"you'll get disappeared by secret police for what you told your coworker in confidence" Not if you aren't brown. But if you are... well you can easily get caught up in an "immigration" "sting"
- robmccoll 1y ago
  Fair. That does seem to be happening unfortunately.

castis 1y ago

"Call them out, hell, call their employer" -JD Vance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngofqx9EfcM&t=7398s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngofqx9EfcM&t=7398s https://x.com/SecRubio/status/1967784061721776521 https://x.com/SecRubio/status/1967784061721776521 revoking visas

matusp 1y ago

Censorship in oppressive countries is often not carried out directly by the government. Instead, to save face, it is enforced along invisible power lines. The government gives a silent nod to other actors in society nudging them to act accordingly. For example, an Eastern Bloc citizen might not receive a formal penalty for leaving the communist party, but their children's admission to university could suddenly become more difficult, of course without any official acknowledgment of the fact.