Free speech in the US

[rambot]

We can finally all agree that free speech in America isn't really a thing right?

I mean before, it was private companies not allowing certain kinds of speech and people complained about private companies railing against hate speech. Something that some people feel it's REALLY important that racists have the opportunity to espouse the views.

Now we have a government pretty clearly trying to control a great deal of speech; both from within and without.

As an outsider, it's interesting to me for a few reasons. The first being I always thought that the first ammendment was present to stop the government from censoring speech. I didn't think that private firms and companies were beholden to the first ammendment and yet the kvetching was real, REAL loud.

And how we have a government that seems pretty interested in controlling speech. I mean, do we NEED links to discuss that?

I've been reading here more recently and there has never really been any meaningful justification by Trump supporters that indicates they are ALSO Pro-first ammendment.

I've been on record for a while that I'm not super pro first ammendment. My reasons for that are probably exactly the same as those Trump supporters who support him deporting protestors.

But I'm curious: If you support Trump deporting people for protesting, what is your reasoning for not supporting the First Ammendment?

 

[Pommer]

We can finally all agree that free speech in America isn't really a thing right?

I mean before, it was private companies not allowing certain kinds of speech and people complained about private companies railing against hate speech. Something that some people feel it's REALLY important that racists have the opportunity to espouse the views.

Now we have a government pretty clearly trying to control a great deal of speech; both from within and without.

As an outsider, it's interesting to me for a few reasons. The first being I always thought that the first ammendment was present to stop the government from censoring speech. I didn't think that private firms and companies were beholden to the first ammendment and yet the kvetching was real, REAL loud.

And how we have a government that seems pretty interested in controlling speech. I mean, do we NEED links to discuss that?

I've been reading here more recently and there has never really been any meaningful justification by Trump supporters that indicates they are ALSO Pro-first ammendment.

I've been on record for a while that I'm not super pro first ammendment. My reasons for that are probably exactly the same as those Trump supporters who support him deporting protestors.

But I'm curious: If you support Trump deporting people for protesting, what is your reasoning for not supporting the First Ammendment?

Traditionally, the US government didn’t advocate for a particular viewpoint and allowed “we, the people” to lurch along with whatever cockamamie things we could imagine rage in the marketplace of ideas.

This tradition has had periods of waxing & waning, (while there was significant anti-German sentiment during The Great War, the government might have encouraged it a fair amount…similarly during WWII anti-Japanese fervor was such that FDR used the 1798 Alien Sedition Act to created “camps” for Japanese immigrants (arguably, both for their safety and to keep them from helping their homeland over here)).

Then McCarthyism in the 1950s was certainly a thing.

The last 70 years hasn’t seen this level of “disapproved” speech (DEI, woke-ism, etc), but this is politics today and we ought to get used to it until AI saves us from ourselves!

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The free speech conversation is interesting, because it's never really been an absolutist principle.

Numerous court cases have ruled that the 1st amendment (like a few others) is a right, but not an unlimited one.

For example, speech that incites someone else to violence has always crossed "a line" in the eyes of most people.


The divide is between the specific "carve outs" to the principle that various groups want.


With regards to a few of these recent things being portrayed as "attacks on free speech", there's more to the story. For instance, the high profile one was the case of that green card holder who was detained due to his role as "spokesman" for the group "Apartheid Divest". (a group that's voiced support for specific terrorist group and praised specific attacks) which does put a green card holder in jeopardy of having their permanent residency privileges revoked.


But typically, those aforementioned carve-outs are pushed for using a few differing strategies.

For example:
When people on the right-wing want a particular speech restriction, they'll tie it to a homeland security or a religious freedom matter

When people on the left-wing want a particular speech restriction, they'll tend to label the thing they don't want said as "hate speech" or "misinformation".

(although, there are some occasions where they'll borrow from each other's playbooks)


Basically, what we have today, is a higher percentage of people who have a vision of "free speech" that's made in their own image.




With regards to some of the polling points that are actually concerning "like what percentage of a group wants there to be legal penalties for people saying things they find offensive", the divide seems to be less pronounced from a "left vs. right" perspective and seems to be more divided among generational lines. So it's not as much of a "left wing overall" thing... the left-leaning Gen X'ers are still pretty laid back. It's more of a progressive millennial and gen Z thing.

 

[zippy2006]

And how we have a government that seems pretty interested in controlling speech.

Maybe try citing an example of what you are talking about. Is this the idea that non-citizens have free speech rights in the U.S.? Because the First Amendment does not give civil free speech rights to non-citizens.

 

[Pommer]

Maybe try citing an example of what you are talking about. Is this the idea that non-citizens have free speech rights in the U.S.? Because the First Amendment does not give civil free speech rights to non-citizens.

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.

Where does it say “citizens only”?

 

[zippy2006]

Where does it say “citizens only”?

There are degrees, but a full civil right to free speech only applies to citizens. If you don't understand that legal rights apply to legal citizens, I'm not sure what to tell you. Else, look up "argument from silence."

 

[Pommer]

There are degrees, but a full civil right to free speech only applies to citizens. If you don't understand that legal rights apply to legal citizens, I'm not sure what to tell you. Else, look up "argument from silence."

Because the United States Constitution doesn’t specifically say “only citizens get rights”, I should take that as evidence that it means “only citizens get rights”?

Sure, why not?

 

[Nithavela]

We can finally all agree that free speech in America isn't really a thing right?

I mean before, it was private companies not allowing certain kinds of speech and people complained about private companies railing against hate speech. Something that some people feel it's REALLY important that racists have the opportunity to espouse the views.

Now we have a government pretty clearly trying to control a great deal of speech; both from within and without.

As an outsider, it's interesting to me for a few reasons. The first being I always thought that the first ammendment was present to stop the government from censoring speech. I didn't think that private firms and companies were beholden to the first ammendment and yet the kvetching was real, REAL loud.

And how we have a government that seems pretty interested in controlling speech. I mean, do we NEED links to discuss that?

I've been reading here more recently and there has never really been any meaningful justification by Trump supporters that indicates they are ALSO Pro-first ammendment.

I've been on record for a while that I'm not super pro first ammendment. My reasons for that are probably exactly the same as those Trump supporters who support him deporting protestors.

But I'm curious: If you support Trump deporting people for protesting, what is your reasoning for not supporting the First Ammendment?

It is my impression that free speech in the USA is mostly defined by the right being allowed to insult people they don't like. Anything else is not that important.

 

[ozso]

People used to be beheaded and burned at the stake for what they said. Which is probably the sort of things the authors of the first amendment had in mind.

 

[Laodicean60]

Because the United States Constitution doesn’t specifically say “only citizens get rights”, I should take that as evidence that it means “only citizens get rights”?

Sure, why not?

Because the Constitution was written for American citizens, unless otherwise specified, like the 14th amendment "All" persons born....

 

[trophy33]

Because the Constitution was written for American citizens, unless otherwise specified, like the 14th amendment "All" persons born....

I think that the USA has such a long and embarrassing history of taking somebody's rights away that we should really stop looking for justifying it again.

There was always some reason why to discriminate against the native people, then Asian people, then Mexicans, then black people, then eastern Europeans...

 

[Laodicean60]

I think that the USA

That's if I care what you think.

 

[trophy33]

That's if I care what you think.

Saying "I think" or "In my opinion" and similar is a polite way to discuss things. And your reply is an example of primitive rudeness.

 

[Laodicean60]

Saying "I think" or "In my opinion" and similar is a polite way to discuss things.

There is nothing polite about bashing my country, it's only acceptable for my countrymen to do it.

And your reply is an example of primitive rudeness.

There was always some reason why to discriminate against the native people, then Asian people, then Mexicans, then black people, then eastern Europeans...

Hypocrite! Seems rude to me. Out

 

[trophy33]

There is nothing polite about bashing my country, it's only acceptable for my countrymen to do it.

It seems you want to create your own rules. And you should learn to control your anger.

 

[rambot]

Maybe try citing an example of what you are talking about. Is this the idea that non-citizens have free speech rights in the U.S.? Because the First Amendment does not give civil free speech rights to non-citizens.

I know it's hard for conservatives to accept but humanoids who are not American ARE actually people....and....

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.


So. No. You are incorrect.

 

[rambot]

People used to be beheaded and burned at the stake for what they said. Which is probably the sort of things the authors of the first amendment had in mind.

Must be a real burden to be able to read the minds of dead people.


I love that the new response from the right is "well the current punishments we are seeing for speech isn't what the founders had in mind so it doesn't really count".

 

[rambot]

The free speech conversation is interesting, because it's never really been an absolutist principle.

Numerous court cases have ruled that the 1st amendment (like a few others) is a right, but not an unlimited one.

For example, speech that incites someone else to violence has always crossed "a line" in the eyes of most people.


The divide is between the specific "carve outs" to the principle that various groups want.


With regards to a few of these recent things being portrayed as "attacks on free speech", there's more to the story. For instance, the high profile one was the case of that green card holder who was detained due to his role as "spokesman" for the group "Apartheid Divest". (a group that's voiced support for specific terrorist group and praised specific attacks) which does put a green card holder in jeopardy of having their permanent residency privileges revoked.


But typically, those aforementioned carve-outs are pushed for using a few differing strategies.

For example:
When people on the right-wing want a particular speech restriction, they'll tie it to a homeland security or a religious freedom matter

When people on the left-wing want a particular speech restriction, they'll tend to label the thing they don't want said as "hate speech" or "misinformation".

(although, there are some occasions where they'll borrow from each other's playbooks)


Basically, what we have today, is a higher percentage of people who have a vision of "free speech" that's made in their own image.




With regards to some of the polling points that are actually concerning "like what percentage of a group wants there to be legal penalties for people saying things they find offensive", the divide seems to be less pronounced from a "left vs. right" perspective and seems to be more divided among generational lines. So it's not as much of a "left wing overall" thing... the left-leaning Gen X'ers are still pretty laid back. It's more of a progressive millennial and gen Z thing.

Ok but you don't really address that the difference between coming (on the left) from private corporations and the current consequences coming from the government.

Doesn't that seem like a pretty major difference in terms of...say, cultural implications? I mean, yes, losing a job is tough. But getting jailed or kicked out of a country is moreso.

 

[BCP1928]

Maybe try citing an example of what you are talking about. Is this the idea that non-citizens have free speech rights in the U.S.? Because the First Amendment does not give civil free speech rights to non-citizens.

Indeed it does, quite specifically, it insures that right to "people" not just "citizens."

 

[zippy2006]

I know it's hard for conservatives to accept but humanoids who are not American ARE actually people....and....

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.


So. No. You are incorrect.

Indeed it does, quite specifically, it insures that right to "people" not just "citizens."

"The people," not "People." Not surprising that the civil law doesn't pontificate on natural rights.

Or if you want to say that non-citizens have "free speech rights" but can be deported for speech that is deemed dangerous, that's fine. That's what is happening, and it is well within law and precedent. It would be nutty beyond belief for a country to give full free speech and non-deportation rights to all non-citizens.