Translation help from Fascist English to US English:
- “activist” = a non-politician whose free speech we don’t like
- “allow all voices to be heard” / “free speech” = extremist/unconstitutional/propaganda speech which serves the interests of the current fascist regime must be allowed, while every other speech will be labelled as being activist/communist/un-American/…
- “defend […] all Americans” = at least the part of Americans which we tolerate or haven’t jailed yet (subject to change)
Kyub’s right.
Democratic governments should allow all voices to be heard, not silence speech they dislike.
That’s real fucking rich coming from the government that:
- Removed all references to “trans-” regardless of context.
- Retaliates against left-leaning press.
- Calls information they dislike “fake news”.
- Sends immigrants to concentration camps.
That because they don’t want free apeech. They want the speech only if its their speech.
I’m not even joking, I thought that whoever wrote this tweet was supporting the French investigation when I first read that.
EU is not much better.
You have to be real careful with controversial subjects such as not liking genocide.
And plenty countries have forbidden communism.
Not to mention not honoring elections in Romania and anulling them, and not letting the winning party participate again.
Even if it is a horrible right-wing party that won, that is still a mask off moment.
Is this the same United States that’s investigating people for having unflattering memes of the vice president on their phone?
Tell us more about the importance of free speech.
Of course the US will fight tooth and nail to keep its propaganda machines at work all around the globe.
While defunding NPR and PBS.
You have to believe that the French government have evaluated in the same week the risk of recognising Palestine and condemning a US company against how vindictive the US government are right now. Hopefully they stick to their guns on both.
Ask Stephen Colbert about the US’ vaunted “free speech”.
His free speech was never infringed. He can say what he wants and not be prosecuted for it. Whether or not he has a job isn’t covered by the First Amendment.
Despite being an “entertainment” show, satirical media is still media, and covered by the First. These shows still rely on that protection against lawsuits, and have been exhonerated with the same defence, Cobert in particular. If you could prove government interference in this case, I’d say there was a pretty good basis for a court case based on freedom of the press, which is the corollary of free speech.
But then, you see who sits in the supreme court, for fucking lifetime.
And of course the stupid pardon rule.
And immunity of president making him above the law even tho nobody shall be above the law.
And possibility to de-found stuff without a vote or a chance to do a referendum.
And gerrymandering.
And winner takes it all.
And no absolute majority requirement.
All this made this fuckup possible.
Everyone loses except only a very small minority wins.
Do something about it.
Colbert didn’t go to prison, not really a good argument.
There are many ways to suppress speech.
“Free speech” doesn’t entitle you to dictate policy over privately held companies. We spent four years trying to convince Trumpers of this. Be smarter.
Like axing a show that didn’t make money ?
That a poor comparison since on x the moderations is about random citizen and not paid employee doing a work for a company that a the end of the day is free to choose how to spent her money
It did make loads of money though? Why do you get to just push blatant lies?
how much ? cause the cost is high too. anyway
However, the “pros” ultimately won out because, according to sources close to the network, “The Late Show” was losing money and there was no apparent path to turning around its financial position. source
Like axing a show that didn’t make money ?
Even if that were true, which it isn’t, what business does the president have even mentioning it much less making a demand?
However, the “pros” ultimately won out because, according to sources close to the network, “The Late Show” was losing money and there was no apparent path to turning around its financial position. source
Colbert didn’t go to prison
I’m sure Colbert’s on the list somewhere.
Oh so the thing that HASN’T HAPPENED is your counterargument?
You are on my list. So what? Neither of you are in prison.
Why is this downvoted? It correctly point out what “free speech” actually means.
It’s a visceral reaction, my guess. It’s exactly the same argument that right wingers used when oreilly, carlson, etc got canceled.
Not paying someone millions for saying stuff on TV is not infringing on free speech, now apparently it’s leftists turn to not understand it.
The only thing I condemn the French inquiry on is that it should have already happened.
From my experience living in the US, the country is not a good reference point for any discussions around the nature of free speech.
Free speech polemics in the US largely have a demonstrative role with individuals parroting random copytext that they’ve heard before in an attempt to position themselves as being special and independent.
In a way, the whole thing is very entertaining.
Every state or social group has its shibboleths - the American one is just to performatively pretend they don’t have any.
Definitely. There is a lot of good things about the US, lots to see, different types of experiences, nice nature. But that doesn’t mean I have to agree with polemics that make no sense.
Name it.
Name what?
The shibboleth in question
Pretending there are none - that it’s a society without in-groups, with social mobility.
There is that.
American democrats, though, irritated me more until I’ve started noticing Republicans. They have that “parties switched in 1960s” myth (only parties’ ideas on race switched, while the main ideology of the democratic party is not too different from “progressives” of 1890s, those guys who advocated for prophylactic lynchings ; and it’s the same about Republicans, whose “anti-racist” ideas were just as Christian fundamentalism based as their today’s projects), and also the “popular party” myth (while even in appearances being something to the top of which only people born with a silver spoon in mouth can get).
At the same time the “free speech” stuff over there seems to mostly be about “they in their totalitarian countries (or pockets of society dominated by the other party) are lied by their propaganda media, and we here are free and are told the truth”.
Not sure it’s entertaining, it looks depressing. But I haven’t lived in the US.
deleted by creator
As part of a criminal investigation, an activist American payment network is requesting to stop selling video games that they seem inappropriate and has basically treated itch.io, Steam, etc. as an “organized crime group.” Democratic governments should allow all games to be played, not silence things they dislike. The United States will defend the free prudence of all Americans against acts of foreign fun.
By condemning this, the “US” is shooting itself in the foot.
Ever since Twitter owner used Twitter to say Canada “wasn’t a real country”, no Canadian should be using Twitter. That wasn’t just bias, it was an “in your face and screw you” kind of bias.
Martin: Organized crime?
Cosmo: Hah. Don’t kid yourself. It’s not that organized.– Sneakers (1992)
Twitter is absolutely going to say “well, we’re definitely not an organised hate group. Sometimes people just hate stuff. We’re just a social media platform, helping people organise. Oh shit”
so … it’s not an “organized hate group” but an “organizing hate” group?
offtopic: I love that movie. It shows everything right despite everything being not serious.
US condemns…
Good. That means you’re doing the right thing. Keep doing it.
Just block it in Europe already. Or give Musk daily-increasing fines so he has it turned off in the EU.
Just block it in Europe already.
The Brazil Government did this for a week and immediately extracted big concessions from Elon. Really curious to see the EU so reluctant to employ a tried-and-true tactic… assuming you believe these governments are adversarial to American plutocrats.
Our leaders will try not to anger the master too much.
then we need new master, i guess?
There are layers of national, then European sold out politicians before you get to VDLeyen the ghoul
Requesting information isn’t limiting free speech is it? Now if that algorithm shows it is indeed limiting or promoting people’s speech in a non-equal manner, that would be limiting people’s free speech would it not?
Dont try facts on the American government and 40% of its population. They dont work like that.
“activist” even trying to discredit foreign federal bureaus by framing them as politically motivated lmao what a bunch of fucking crooks in the US admin.
