3 ms·

I think your comment, perhaps unintentionally, downplays the seriousness of the January 6th coup attempt. America has since decided to essentially forget about

by dangus 5mo ago

I think your comment, perhaps unintentionally, downplays the seriousness of the January 6th coup attempt. America has since decided to essentially forget about January 6th but there was a brief period of time where pretty much everyone figured Trump was toast. Impeached, removed, and probably set to be put on trial for serious crimes against the USA. I know the guy has a knack for escaping consequences but it came really close to happening. He is a convicted felon and that’s despite these multiple criminal inquiries being scrapped due to his 2024 election win. If he had lost the election, there is a high chance he could have been serving some kind of criminal sentence. You also can’t wave the “free speech” thing around without understanding what the first amendment is about. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences, it’s freedom from the government controlling speech and the government giving you consequences for your protected speech. That specifically includes the government not being allowed to police social networks on who they decide to ban or allow on platforms. Facebook is legally allowed to be a liberals/conservatives-only social media platform if they want to be that. I’m even allowed to discriminate on hiring employees based on their political beliefs, it’s not a protected class.

mindslight 5mo ago
I was with you for the first part, but corpos have gotten to the scale where they wield power much closer to governments than individuals. In fact I'd say this is precisely why so many large corpos, traditionally thought of as desiring stability, continue to back societal arsonist Trump - they're trying to destroy as much of the United States Government as they can, so they can step into the power vacuum and exert even more governmental power. The real problem is the Constitutional framing of our rights in a negative manner that does not lend itself to judgements based on equitable weighing of parties' interests. The comment you're responding to tries to lay out refinements to our legal implementation of freedom of speech that at least tries to mitigate some of these problems. Fixing these problems (ie neutering the governmental power of corpos) would be a step in the right direction.
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]

by dangus 5mo ago

mindslight 5mo ago

I was with you for the first part, but corpos have gotten to the scale where they wield power much closer to governments than individuals. In fact I'd say this is precisely why so many large corpos, traditionally thought of as desiring stability, continue to back societal arsonist Trump - they're trying to destroy as much of the United States Government as they can, so they can step into the power vacuum and exert even more governmental power. The real problem is the Constitutional framing of our rights in a negative manner that does not lend itself to judgements based on equitable weighing of parties' interests. The comment you're responding to tries to lay out refinements to our legal implementation of freedom of speech that at least tries to mitigate some of these problems. Fixing these problems (ie neutering the governmental power of corpos) would be a step in the right direction.

deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]