9 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.

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?
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
        ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
        > if FOIA protects a current constitutional right, it is at best the tenth amendment, not the first. This article is about the entire first amendment, not just FOIA or transparency in general. > to the point where the right to redress is abrogated? Certainly to the point where it requires a higher standard than "the rest of us".
        throwawaymaths 1y ago
        > This article is about the entire first amendment, not just FOIA or transparency in general. yes, i read the whole thing. as a general strategy in a persuasive essay you shouldn't include an argument with such a weak association, much less lead with it, because it makes me question the author's judgement and devalues the arguments downpage. if i were less patient i would have quit after the FOIA part. > Certainly to the point where it requires a higher standard than "the rest of us". success requires a higher standard. but curtailing the right to redress (the right to initiate the complaining suit) is problematic: eventually someone will extend the curtailment to people with less power.
        ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
        > as a general strategy in a persuasive essay you shouldn't include an argument with such a weak association, much less lead with it I've never found that to be true, because most people recognize that the essay was once in which any of the points individually being correct would make for a persuasive essay. The addition of N examples only reinforces the point N times over. Thus, any single argument being unconvincing to somebody isn't a huge issue, since all the points would have to be false for the essay to not ring true. > curtailing the right to redress (the right to initiate the complaining suit) is problematic That may be so (indeed, we see so in donald's ongoing efforts to limit others' right to redress), but imposing a higher standard for libel of public figures vs. private individuals isn't problematic. > eventually someone will extend the curtailment to people with less power. This strikes me as a slippery slope fallacy, and one that isn't very convincing in this case. The higher threshold for public figures than private individuals (which is the topic, not curtailment) already exists and has for a while, and the worst thing we've seen is the most public and powerful person in the world still trying to exploit libel law to attack political opponents. So the concern doesn't seem borne out in the data.
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
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". (
- raxxorraxor 1y ago
  Interesting you call it a "brand". People picked up the term because it was meant to be an insult and that is quite relevant to understand the current political situation and why Trump can sell himself as free speech defender while doing the opposite. Bascially because his opposition is that much slower...
- 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.

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?
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
        > if FOIA protects a current constitutional right, it is at best the tenth amendment, not the first. This article is about the entire first amendment, not just FOIA or transparency in general. > to the point where the right to redress is abrogated? Certainly to the point where it requires a higher standard than "the rest of us".
        throwawaymaths 1y ago
        > This article is about the entire first amendment, not just FOIA or transparency in general. yes, i read the whole thing. as a general strategy in a persuasive essay you shouldn't include an argument with such a weak association, much less lead with it, because it makes me question the author's judgement and devalues the arguments downpage. if i were less patient i would have quit after the FOIA part. > Certainly to the point where it requires a higher standard than "the rest of us". success requires a higher standard. but curtailing the right to redress (the right to initiate the complaining suit) is problematic: eventually someone will extend the curtailment to people with less power.
        ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
        > as a general strategy in a persuasive essay you shouldn't include an argument with such a weak association, much less lead with it I've never found that to be true, because most people recognize that the essay was once in which any of the points individually being correct would make for a persuasive essay. The addition of N examples only reinforces the point N times over. Thus, any single argument being unconvincing to somebody isn't a huge issue, since all the points would have to be false for the essay to not ring true. > curtailing the right to redress (the right to initiate the complaining suit) is problematic That may be so (indeed, we see so in donald's ongoing efforts to limit others' right to redress), but imposing a higher standard for libel of public figures vs. private individuals isn't problematic. > eventually someone will extend the curtailment to people with less power. This strikes me as a slippery slope fallacy, and one that isn't very convincing in this case. The higher threshold for public figures than private individuals (which is the topic, not curtailment) already exists and has for a while, and the worst thing we've seen is the most public and powerful person in the world still trying to exploit libel law to attack political opponents. So the concern doesn't seem borne out in the data.

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

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". (

raxxorraxor 1y ago
Interesting you call it a "brand". People picked up the term because it was meant to be an insult and that is quite relevant to understand the current political situation and why Trump can sell himself as free speech defender while doing the opposite. Bascially because his opposition is that much slower...
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.