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.
us should realise the world doesn’t revolve around them and nobody respects them.
Twitter only allows nazi speech now.
Hasn’t Elon been found multiple times suppressing people who say things he doesn’t like?
About twice a day yeah
large backlog in north korea, russia, and china. Better get that military up to snuff.
Idiots.
Not even regular idiots, hypocritical idiots.
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.
Don’t forget
removed funding for weather services or deleted materials related to climate change
runs from people trying to ask them questions
If we’re adding “runs from people trying to ask them questions”, we should be more accurate about it.
runs from people trying to ask them questions, calling them plants put there by political opponents
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.No no, you don’t understand. That doesn’t apply to us plebs (US citizens). It only applies to other countries so that the government can checks notes “strongly condemn” them.
That’s the regressive mindset for you. When they say ‘all’, they mean themselves.
They don’t want to be forced to listen to what YOU have to say, but they want to force YOU to listen to what they have to say.
just like my mom. god i miss her from before she went crazy
She’s still in there somewhere, locked away by propaganda. She needs to be deprogrammed, just like the rest.
so what do they do with transport? Or foreign companies using trans in their name?
What did they do indeed
I’m waiting for the conniption when all these people find out that the cars and trucks they drive have transmissions.
Did they really classify Twitter as an “organised crime group”? Because that does seem a bit farfetched.
What is the actual context here? I don’t trust what this tweet says
He’s not American, he’s a super racist south african with Canadian citizenship.
He’s been an American for 23 years.
In America. Not the same thing. He’s been an illegal alien the whole time.
His citizenship hasn’t been revoked. That’s like saying Trump should be in jail. Sure, but where does he sleep at night?
Difference is Trump WAS going to jail. He just decided he wouldnt. Hope the next president just get away with him forever, if Trump survives his term (because of age)
“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.
The US Administration, more importantly a branch of the department of state, condemns French inquiry.
A lot of the USA are cheering the French on.
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?
Surely ‘X’ isn’t doing that? Say it ain’t so!
Dont try facts on the American government and 40% of its population. They dont work like that.
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.
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
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.
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.
Colbert didn’t go to prison
I’m sure Colbert’s on the list somewhere.
You are on my list. So what? Neither of you are in prison.
Oh so the thing that HASN’T HAPPENED is your counterargument?
There are many ways to suppress speech.
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
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
It did make loads of money though? Why do you get to just push blatant lies?
For the same freedom of speech reasons that we’re applying to Colbert. That jerkwad is just as entitled to lie as they are to tell the truth, and it’s up to everyone else to call them out on it.
Can someone explain why a post in favour of free speech is being downvoted on lemmy ?
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
“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.
What do you mean, did the Biden admin target any particular shows or networks? Are you also aware the current admin is holding off Paramount’s merger to exert influence over their programming? IDK how free that feels. May not be directly breaking laws, but it’s absolutely a subversion of free speech.
No, it’s not. Free speech protects what you say from the government, not your employer. Your employer ALSO has free speech, meaning they can decide what can and can’t be said on their property.
This is like saying Sesame Street doesn’t show hardcore porn and that’s a violation of free speech.
Based on your response, I’m not sure you even read my questions.
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.
