6 ms·

What your Chinese friend isn't saying is that all those Substack writers in the US would be disappeared into Chinese gulag's. The US has a strong freedom of spe

by pookha 1y ago

What your Chinese friend isn't saying is that all those Substack writers in the US would be disappeared into Chinese gulag's. The US has a strong freedom of speech clause baked into its core governance system...When I was fifteen I'd be subscribed to five different punk zines and would be creating mix-tapes from 10 different sources (and much of it wildly offensive and political).

bongodongobob 1y ago
And yet people are getting fired over making comments about Charlie Kirk on social media.
- jonnybgood 1y ago
  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.
  - 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.
  - 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.
  - 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.
- philwelch 1y ago
  There’s something hypocritical about a person who thinks it’s an injustice for them to be fired for expressing their opinions, when that opinion is that they are glad Charlie Kirk was murdered for expressing his opinions. Karl Popper said, “But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols."
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
    Excellent point. Love the Popper quote. We can't be suicidally principled.
  - thomastjeffery 1y ago
    > when that opinion is that they are glad Charlie Kirk was murdered for expressing his opinions. You are conflating the expression of an opinion with the opinion itself. Generally, the point people are getting fired for making is that the very circumstances of Charlie Kirk's murder are precisely the circumstances he advocated for. I don't find it hypocritical to draw attention to that irony. I do, however, find it hypocritical to fire someone for expressing dissent about the opinions of a man who literally became famous for directly asking random people in public to enter into arguments with him.
    - philwelch 1y ago
      > Generally, the point people are getting fired for making is that the very circumstances of Charlie Kirk's murder are precisely the circumstances he advocated for. He never advocated murdering people over political disagreements. He disagreed with banning guns, but even the people who advocate banning guns don’t usually openly advocate banning bolt action hunting rifles. The sentiment here is to cheer and laugh at a premeditated murder. If you want to rationalize it, whatever. It’s no use trying to have a discussion with someone who cheers and laughs at a man getting murdered for having discussions.
- adamtaylor_13 1y ago
  Freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences. People aren't "making comments," they're celebrating the murder of a man whose opinions they disagreed with. Many Americans are waking up to realize that a large number of people they considered friends and colleagues would revel in their death if they let their political opinions be heard. I would 100% fire someone for celebrating murder. Sorry, call me old-fashioned, but I believe in hiring people of integrity, and I will fire you if I find out you don't have any.
  - throwaway-11-1 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - adamtaylor_13 1y ago
      It's clear you've never even watched the very videos you claim to be citing. 1a. He's referencing DEI, citing how it debases people. He literally says, _in the video_, "I don't want to have these thoughts, but that's what DEI does." I know you won't go watch it, but you're just parroting a false statement that Charlie Kirk never made. 1b. He never said that. He said that Black families had better standards of living before the Civil Rights Act, referencing both household incomes, rates of fatherlessness, and crime rates. All objective facts that are true. It's hardly racist to point out how America is not getting better for black Americans. 2. I've not heard this one. Feel free to cite a source and I'll take a look. 3. I've also not heard this one. Once again, I'll go look if you'd like to provide sources.
      - throwaway-11-1 1y ago
        1a. Ok so what exactly did he mean by “I want someone ‘cookie cutter’ not ‘Laqueesha James’. 1b. Is the implication allowing race based discrimination for hiring and voting considerations would improve black families’ material conditions? 2. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna191224 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna191224 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_Access_Hollywood_tape?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_Access_Hollywood_... For real have you been in a coma?
manoDev 1y ago
[flagged]
- imcritic 1y ago
  [flagged]
- scottlabsorg 1y ago
  [flagged]
- Manuel_D 1y ago
  Shouting down other people deprives them of their freedom of speech, and is rightfully prevented. Padilla was detained because he was attempting to do that: disrupt someone else from exercising speech. He could have made the exact same speech in his own space without consequences. If you disapprove of how Padilla was treated, that's fine, just be honest about why he was detained: not for the content of his speech, but his attempt to prevent another from speaking.
  - snozolli 1y ago
    Interrupting or questioning people isn't a denial of first amendment rights. You're using extremely sloppy logic, mixing "freedom from interruption" with "freedom of speech".
    - Manuel_D 1y ago
      Absolutely, repeatedly interrupting people with questions can get you arrested. Go to a public commentary session at your local town hall. Exceed your allotted time period and keep questioning the officials. You'll eventually be arrested and taken away. Because in doing so, you're depriving the rest of the town from their opportunity to give a public comment. There's nothing complicated about this. Padilla isn't being treated any differently from anyone else. Freedom of speech does not entail freedom to prevent others from speaking.
  - manoDev 1y ago
imcritic 1y ago
[flagged]
- agsqwe 1y ago
  Everything is relative. I'm an immigrant from a post-USSR country and the US is still orders of magnitude more democratic and free
  - mathfailure 1y ago
    Doubt. What are post-USSR countries (except for Ukraine) where government detains lots of people who hasn't committed any crimes? How many people get wrongfully killed by cops in post-USSR countries? In U.S. that's like a sport for cops to find an excuse to unalive someone. And what is democratic about the fact that majority of people votes for candidate A, yet candidate B becomes the president because... because it's people don't actually vote for president, they vote for someone who counts pro-some party and it's THEY who vote for president in the end. What's democratic about corruption being completely legal (lobbying)? Do you know a single post-USSR country where lobbying is legal? (Hell, how can it be legal at all? there's no distinction between lobbying and corruption, that's the same thing!)
    - DaSHacka 1y ago
      [flagged]
Hikikomori 1y ago
Does it matter if you can speak if the system is designed do that you can't be heard?
- bluGill 1y ago
  You can be and are heard. It may only be a tiny minority, but odds are good someone hears you. That is better than disappearing if you speak.
- pjc50 1y ago
  A more serious problem: do people want to listen? Do they want difficult truths or comforting lies?
  - m-s-y 1y ago
    Honestly, it doesn’t matter. Staying silent generally doesn’t take an act of courage. No one exercises their speech muscles by staying silent. The true revolutionary act is exercising our right to speech, honestly and frequently. The important part is not to keep silent.
    - brookst 1y ago
      Suggest googling “compelled speech”
- thisisit 1y ago
  Loudest voice in the room wins. Crying baby gets the milk. Always. You can pick any opinion you got from media. Whether it is the whole discussion around autism or the push for DEI. Everything comes down to someone speaking or maybe even shouting. The unfortunate fact is that people try to see everything through a conspiracy lens and hence miss out voices are still heard - loud and clear.

by pookha 1y ago

bongodongobob 1y ago

And yet people are getting fired over making comments about Charlie Kirk on social media.

jonnybgood 1y ago
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
philwelch 1y ago
There’s something hypocritical about a person who thinks it’s an injustice for them to be fired for expressing their opinions, when that opinion is that they are glad Charlie Kirk was murdered for expressing his opinions. Karl Popper said, “But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols."
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
  Excellent point. Love the Popper quote. We can't be suicidally principled.
- thomastjeffery 1y ago
  > when that opinion is that they are glad Charlie Kirk was murdered for expressing his opinions. You are conflating the expression of an opinion with the opinion itself. Generally, the point people are getting fired for making is that the very circumstances of Charlie Kirk's murder are precisely the circumstances he advocated for. I don't find it hypocritical to draw attention to that irony. I do, however, find it hypocritical to fire someone for expressing dissent about the opinions of a man who literally became famous for directly asking random people in public to enter into arguments with him.
  - philwelch 1y ago
    > Generally, the point people are getting fired for making is that the very circumstances of Charlie Kirk's murder are precisely the circumstances he advocated for. He never advocated murdering people over political disagreements. He disagreed with banning guns, but even the people who advocate banning guns don’t usually openly advocate banning bolt action hunting rifles. The sentiment here is to cheer and laugh at a premeditated murder. If you want to rationalize it, whatever. It’s no use trying to have a discussion with someone who cheers and laughs at a man getting murdered for having discussions.
adamtaylor_13 1y ago
Freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences. People aren't "making comments," they're celebrating the murder of a man whose opinions they disagreed with. Many Americans are waking up to realize that a large number of people they considered friends and colleagues would revel in their death if they let their political opinions be heard. I would 100% fire someone for celebrating murder. Sorry, call me old-fashioned, but I believe in hiring people of integrity, and I will fire you if I find out you don't have any.
- throwaway-11-1 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - adamtaylor_13 1y ago
    It's clear you've never even watched the very videos you claim to be citing. 1a. He's referencing DEI, citing how it debases people. He literally says, _in the video_, "I don't want to have these thoughts, but that's what DEI does." I know you won't go watch it, but you're just parroting a false statement that Charlie Kirk never made. 1b. He never said that. He said that Black families had better standards of living before the Civil Rights Act, referencing both household incomes, rates of fatherlessness, and crime rates. All objective facts that are true. It's hardly racist to point out how America is not getting better for black Americans. 2. I've not heard this one. Feel free to cite a source and I'll take a look. 3. I've also not heard this one. Once again, I'll go look if you'd like to provide sources.
    - throwaway-11-1 1y ago
      1a. Ok so what exactly did he mean by “I want someone ‘cookie cutter’ not ‘Laqueesha James’. 1b. Is the implication allowing race based discrimination for hiring and voting considerations would improve black families’ material conditions? 2. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna191224 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna191224 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_Access_Hollywood_tape?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_Access_Hollywood_... For real have you been in a coma?

manoDev 1y ago

[flagged]

imcritic 1y ago
[flagged]
scottlabsorg 1y ago
[flagged]
Manuel_D 1y ago
Shouting down other people deprives them of their freedom of speech, and is rightfully prevented. Padilla was detained because he was attempting to do that: disrupt someone else from exercising speech. He could have made the exact same speech in his own space without consequences. If you disapprove of how Padilla was treated, that's fine, just be honest about why he was detained: not for the content of his speech, but his attempt to prevent another from speaking.
- snozolli 1y ago
  Interrupting or questioning people isn't a denial of first amendment rights. You're using extremely sloppy logic, mixing "freedom from interruption" with "freedom of speech".
  - Manuel_D 1y ago
    Absolutely, repeatedly interrupting people with questions can get you arrested. Go to a public commentary session at your local town hall. Exceed your allotted time period and keep questioning the officials. You'll eventually be arrested and taken away. Because in doing so, you're depriving the rest of the town from their opportunity to give a public comment. There's nothing complicated about this. Padilla isn't being treated any differently from anyone else. Freedom of speech does not entail freedom to prevent others from speaking.
- manoDev 1y ago

imcritic 1y ago

[flagged]

agsqwe 1y ago
Everything is relative. I'm an immigrant from a post-USSR country and the US is still orders of magnitude more democratic and free
- mathfailure 1y ago
  Doubt. What are post-USSR countries (except for Ukraine) where government detains lots of people who hasn't committed any crimes? How many people get wrongfully killed by cops in post-USSR countries? In U.S. that's like a sport for cops to find an excuse to unalive someone. And what is democratic about the fact that majority of people votes for candidate A, yet candidate B becomes the president because... because it's people don't actually vote for president, they vote for someone who counts pro-some party and it's THEY who vote for president in the end. What's democratic about corruption being completely legal (lobbying)? Do you know a single post-USSR country where lobbying is legal? (Hell, how can it be legal at all? there's no distinction between lobbying and corruption, that's the same thing!)
  - DaSHacka 1y ago
    [flagged]

Hikikomori 1y ago

Does it matter if you can speak if the system is designed do that you can't be heard?

bluGill 1y ago
You can be and are heard. It may only be a tiny minority, but odds are good someone hears you. That is better than disappearing if you speak.
pjc50 1y ago
A more serious problem: do people want to listen? Do they want difficult truths or comforting lies?
- m-s-y 1y ago
  Honestly, it doesn’t matter. Staying silent generally doesn’t take an act of courage. No one exercises their speech muscles by staying silent. The true revolutionary act is exercising our right to speech, honestly and frequently. The important part is not to keep silent.
  - brookst 1y ago
    Suggest googling “compelled speech”
thisisit 1y ago
Loudest voice in the room wins. Crying baby gets the milk. Always. You can pick any opinion you got from media. Whether it is the whole discussion around autism or the push for DEI. Everything comes down to someone speaking or maybe even shouting. The unfortunate fact is that people try to see everything through a conspiracy lens and hence miss out voices are still heard - loud and clear.