Is Free Speech Under Attack in this Country?

[sturg33]

If you aren't dealing in sedition inciting BS you should be alright. If not, no worries. I can live quite well without them.

Yeah those dem law makers got away with it though. I posted their calls for violence in another thread. There were crickets after that...

[mqt]

I'm a firm advocate of free speech. I think using any kind of power to silence any viewpoint is a dangerous business to start. I've never encountered anything so awful, dangerous, and evil that it can't be talked about.

When I try to argue with people that free speech is important, the argument I often hear back justifying people taking action to shut down someone they disagree with is "The first amendment only protects you from the government. It doesn't protect you from other people." This is a legally true statement. You have every right to protest and demand someone's business be destroyed or their employer fire them. However, I find that abhorrent to the philosophical reasons supporting freedom of speech.

A marketplace of ideas only works if people are not afraid of retribution for stating their belief. And I don't think where the retribution comes from should make a difference. In the past, the government has been the one shutting down free speech. It often still does. But more and more we're seeing people banding together and using new media to try to exert power or pressure institutions with power to use that power to silence speech.

Suppose you have a scientist who wants to publish a paper detailing how the dumping of certain chemicals contaminates water supplies and causes cancer. Now suppose there's a company that dumps a lot of these chemicals that's also a big donor to the private university that employs that scientist. The company tells the university they wont donate any more money if any faculty members publish any papers about those chemicals. The university then tells the scientist that if he publishes that paper, he'll be fired or never get tenure.

In this case you've had a private actor (the company) pressuring another private actor (the university) to silence the scientist and so hold back what could have been beneficial information to society. This is the danger of silencing speech whether it's a government silencing it or a private actor.

I think this is a very fair point, and I often feel very uneasy when, for instance, a person who says something controversial online is harassed or their employer notified over something they said.

However, I really struggle to apply that to some of the things Conservatives are arguing, such as access to Twitter or advertisements for television programs. While social media has become a staple of life today, it’s still a “free” service being provided and moderated by a business. Whether they’re enforcing their rules fairly or not, it’s still their call to say what is to be allowed on their platform. The fact that so many proponents of limited government are calling for government intervention astounds me, as this is essentially calling for regulation of how a private company handles their business. To argue this is basically throwing out their own arguments against regulations for emissions or other environmental concerns, which has been a bedrock of their view of government in this country for years.

As someone who has argued in favor of regulations, I can see the idea of the public good outweighing the rights of a private business, but I think it’s a open question whether or not access to a free service by a company is a right that should be fought for or not. Likewise, I think it’s very hard to argue that if someone says something controversial that a company should have to pay that person’s employer millions of dollars in advertising revenue. I know it’s a cliche at this point, but here’s been this rush to equate freedom of speech with the right to consequence-free speech. It can, and probably should be the case that if you do or say something awful that there be a social consequence to that behavior. If Tucker Carlson says we need to protect the values of white, Christian families from foreign invaders (an oversimplification, I know) then it’s not wrong to ask a company if they really want to give Fox their money to endorse that. If Donald Trump is told by Twitter not to do something, then does that thing, he shouldn’t be allowed to use Twitter.

There has certainly been some developments over the last few years that have been concerning, both from the standpoint of actual attacks on free speech as outlined in the constitution and in an overreaction in the public to controversial opinions. It’s not good for the public discourse if all opposing views are silenced and an Internet mob ruins someone’s life over benign statements or actions. I just think that many of the claims being made are taking these concerns too far by applying them to decisions that are justified.

[sturg33]

As always, a legal right and a moral right are different points of discussion

[sturg33]

Limbaugh deleted.

Cheer it on.

When they run out of prominent voices they will have to move on to the next group

[mqt]

As always, a legal right and a moral right are different points of discussion

A moral right is subjective, though. It’s a compelling argument that the internet has become so integral to life that it’s a public good, but as of right now, it’s not treated as such, and we are subject to the rules of those that provide services to us. Once we get past the question of legality of free speech, it’s simply too complicated to just say someone’s rights are being infringed upon in my opinion. There are dueling interpretations of what is most just morally, and many would argue that social media companies don’t go far enough in the pursuit of moral rights. So to pound your chest demanding that we protect free speech from a moral perspective just strikes me as odd.

[sturg33]

A society that doesn't defend and protect free speech doesn't really have free speech.

[57Brave]

TikTok has preemptively banned Trump from the platform: “no one wants to see that ****” a rep said, in regards to a question about him doing the renegade

[cajunrevenge]

https://lawandcrime.com/first-amendm...ct-statements/



Senator Hawley says his free speech was violated by the publisher canceling his book deal and in the next sentence calls for Joe Biden to withdraw statements made about Hawley.

[cajunrevenge]

[cajunrevenge]

Heres the guy who complains he doesnt have free speech complaining and attacking people that are using their free speech to ask questions he doesnt like.

[cajunrevenge]

"President Trump’s failure to tamp down the angry protestors supporting him in Washington has destroyed his legacy.

Our divided nation turns to you, @JoeBiden. Defuse it. As best you can."


Bill O'Reilly




MAGA now all of a sudden agrees Bill shouldnt have a platform on national TV. Funny how that works.

[cajunrevenge]

Shut up and dribble. Is this what you mean by free speech under attack?

[cajunrevenge]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/09/b...pril-ryan.html


member when Trump revoked Jim Acosta's WH press pass for asking questions he didnt like and then threatened to do the same to anyone else that asks questions he doesnt like?

[cajunrevenge]

https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/...x-news/341851/


Heres Jake Tapper defending Fox News when Obama administration was feuding with them.




Tapper: It’s escaped none of our notice that the White House has decided in the last few weeks to declare one of our sister organizations “not a news organization” and to tell the rest of us not to treat them like a news organization. Can you explain why it’s appropriate for the White House to decide that a news organization is not one?

Gibbs: Jake, we render, we render an opinion based on some of their coverage and the fairness that, the fairness of that coverage.

Tapper: But that’s a pretty sweeping declaration that they are “not a news organization.” How are they any different from, say –

Gibbs: ABC -

Tapper: ABC. MSNBC. Univision. I mean how are they any different?

Gibbs: You and I should watch sometime around 9 o’clock tonight. Or 5 o’clock this afternoon.

Tapper: I’m not talking about their opinion programming or issues you have with certain reports. I’m talking about saying thousands of individuals who work for a media organization, do not work for a “news organization” -- why is that appropriate for the White House to say?

Gibbs: That’s our opinion.

[sturg33]

I used to like Tapper til Trump broke him

[cajunrevenge]

“Watched Saturday Night Live hit job on me.Time to retire the boring and unfunny show. Alec Baldwin portrayal stinks. Media rigging election!


Member when Trump wanted SNL canceled for their portrail of him in comedy sketches which they have literally done to every President going back to I think Ford.

[cajunrevenge]

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020...chment-enemies


Who members Trumps WH sending a cease and desist letter to the same publisher that just canceled Hawleys book deal and wanted Bolton criminally investigated......

[sturg33]

I think you are confusing disagreeing with bad media takes and literally banning media takes.

But we've done this dance before

[zitothebrave]

Remember when Kaepernick's NFL career was ended because Republicans didn't like that he took a knee?

Where was his free speech right advocates here?

[cajunrevenge]

I want Schiff questioned at the highest level for Fraud & Treason,”


“Adam Schiff illegally made up a FAKE & terrible statement, pretended it to be mine as the most important part of my call to the Ukrainian President ... Arrest for Treason?”