You need a foundation in what freedom of speech is and then pair that with the complicated reality we are facing. Your definition of freedom of speech is nonsensical at best.
Freedom of speech refers to government action in public space to suppress speech it does not agree with.
For instance, in our colleges there was some pro-palestine demonstrations. In Florida the government issued a decree to disband SJC. This is classic suppression of free speech because it involves a government action in a public space.
Because we live in a fascist oligarchy though it becomes complicated because corporations simultaneously are controlled and control the government. This merger of the state and corporations complicates the simple definition of freedom of speech.
It’s freedom from legal (or government) sanction, censorship, or retaliation for expressing opinions or ideas.
Because we live in a fascist oligarchy
corporations simultaneously are controlled and control the government
That’s a stretch.
Where was that government control of private companies during the Biden administration or previous administrations dating back to the beginning of the Epstein crimes?
Is the government controlling MSNBC, New York Times, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS?
Private companies aren’t legal authorities, and they aren’t legally obligated to repeat or broadcast anyone’s speech: that’s how social media nowadays defends deplatforming.
Would your claim mean that deplatforming suppresses free speech?
Trump supporters saying STFU doesn’t amount to legal sanctions.
I’ve only seen the Trump administration evade, deny, or deflect.
Where are the legal sanctions suppressing the speech of Epstein victims?
The government exerts influence through subversive means pretty regularly. It is common for them to do things like have people or organizations cut off from the financial system. This is not always done through legal channels but the results are the same.
If MasterCard or Visa stop doing business with you it is their right. But what if the government asked them to without a court order. This is a real life scenario that happens.
We can also see this with our current news reporting where the government excerpts control over the media and the media follows without court orders.
Is deplatforming against free speech? Well if it is influenced by the government then I think you could argue it is. If Trump makes a vague threat like X company is making the hugest mistake by supporting Y and then their platform voluntarily changes their stance or removes speech, that could also be interpreted as suppression.
There is no smoking gun though or legal order people might say. I think if the results are the same it doesn’t matter.
Is the government controlling media? I think the answer is most certainly yes. Would you argue the government is not currently using its massive influence to control the media. We have always had an illusion of independent media. The problem is all media is controlled by a handful of wealthy individuals that are influenced and influence the government.
If we did have independent diverse media why do they all repeat the exact same talking points? I am sorry, but I am not naive enough to believe any of that nonsense. This is not new, the capture of the media world happened a long time ago, but a recent critique that was meaningful was found in Goodnight and Good luck.
The US has always had major issues with government propaganda. The entire system is propped up on lies stacked upon lies. A great example of this was after 9/11 when the government used propaganda and islamophobia to attack Iraq.
The media quickly fell inline following the governments direction and stopping critical analysis of what was happening. Having lived through this the effect on the media was obvious and chilling. Criticism of the President and their actions was all but silenced.
We can easily determine the government can exert influence without legal orders so your questions about where are the legal sanctions is either naive or disingenuous.
Lastly, I am not here to argue that saying STFU is suppression of free speech. This in itself is propaganda used to distract. It is a stupid reframing of what is really going on.
Maybe not explicitly, but pretty much every Trump supporter has told them to stfu, in so many words
Telling them to STFU obligates them not to exercise their free speech? I don’t see where that gags anyone.
Again, maybe not explicitly. They’re covering for pedophiles. I’m sure you’re ok with that
I guarantee you missed any nuance in this comic. It’s ok, adults are talking
Consequentialist fallacy: outcomes have no bearing on whether a conclusion logically follows from premises.
Circular reasoning: the outcome assumes your conclusion (that STFU can suppress freedom of speech, which is unsupported) is true.
Freedom of speech means you can tell anyone to STFU, and they’re free to speak regardless.
Moreover, as widely reported in the press, the communities who promoted rightwing conspiracy theories about Jeffery Epstein (extracted from more general conspiracy theories that a shadowy cabal of deep state elites runs pedophile rings to harvest adrenochrome) are the Trump voters. They’re the Trump supporters with a longer record than anyone of pushing for the release of those files. Top officials like Kash Patel & Dan Bondingo sprang right out of that community.
Condescension, and we should expect adults to respect logic. Are you an adult? If so, that’s unfortunate.
You need a foundation in what freedom of speech is and then pair that with the complicated reality we are facing. Your definition of freedom of speech is nonsensical at best.
Define freedom of speech. This is not a hard question.
Freedom of speech refers to government action in public space to suppress speech it does not agree with.
For instance, in our colleges there was some pro-palestine demonstrations. In Florida the government issued a decree to disband SJC. This is classic suppression of free speech because it involves a government action in a public space.
Because we live in a fascist oligarchy though it becomes complicated because corporations simultaneously are controlled and control the government. This merger of the state and corporations complicates the simple definition of freedom of speech.
It’s freedom from legal (or government) sanction, censorship, or retaliation for expressing opinions or ideas.
That’s a stretch. Where was that government control of private companies during the Biden administration or previous administrations dating back to the beginning of the Epstein crimes? Is the government controlling MSNBC, New York Times, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS? Private companies aren’t legal authorities, and they aren’t legally obligated to repeat or broadcast anyone’s speech: that’s how social media nowadays defends deplatforming. Would your claim mean that deplatforming suppresses free speech?
Trump supporters saying STFU doesn’t amount to legal sanctions. I’ve only seen the Trump administration evade, deny, or deflect. Where are the legal sanctions suppressing the speech of Epstein victims?
The government exerts influence through subversive means pretty regularly. It is common for them to do things like have people or organizations cut off from the financial system. This is not always done through legal channels but the results are the same.
If MasterCard or Visa stop doing business with you it is their right. But what if the government asked them to without a court order. This is a real life scenario that happens.
We can also see this with our current news reporting where the government excerpts control over the media and the media follows without court orders.
Is deplatforming against free speech? Well if it is influenced by the government then I think you could argue it is. If Trump makes a vague threat like X company is making the hugest mistake by supporting Y and then their platform voluntarily changes their stance or removes speech, that could also be interpreted as suppression.
There is no smoking gun though or legal order people might say. I think if the results are the same it doesn’t matter.
Is the government controlling media? I think the answer is most certainly yes. Would you argue the government is not currently using its massive influence to control the media. We have always had an illusion of independent media. The problem is all media is controlled by a handful of wealthy individuals that are influenced and influence the government.
If we did have independent diverse media why do they all repeat the exact same talking points? I am sorry, but I am not naive enough to believe any of that nonsense. This is not new, the capture of the media world happened a long time ago, but a recent critique that was meaningful was found in Goodnight and Good luck.
The US has always had major issues with government propaganda. The entire system is propped up on lies stacked upon lies. A great example of this was after 9/11 when the government used propaganda and islamophobia to attack Iraq.
The media quickly fell inline following the governments direction and stopping critical analysis of what was happening. Having lived through this the effect on the media was obvious and chilling. Criticism of the President and their actions was all but silenced.
We can easily determine the government can exert influence without legal orders so your questions about where are the legal sanctions is either naive or disingenuous.
Lastly, I am not here to argue that saying STFU is suppression of free speech. This in itself is propaganda used to distract. It is a stupid reframing of what is really going on.