Post AIRibFlTJIcA6r9ldA by aral@mastodon.ar.al
(DIR) More posts by aral@mastodon.ar.al
(DIR) Post #AIRibFlTJIcA6r9ldA by aral@mastodon.ar.al
2022-04-14T12:06:36Z
2 likes, 5 repeats
I don’t know who needs to hear this but “free speech” isn’t what some billionaire says you’re allowed to say on his private property.
(DIR) Post #AIU44Owek9guKk32B6 by lucifer@evil.social
2022-04-14T12:12:02.926Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@aral@mastodon.ar.al I repeat this weekly. At least in the US free speech is defined by what the gov allows/does not allow you to say, not private individuals. Twitter has nothing to do with free speech. At all. Period.
(DIR) Post #AIU7bUmON6r7qbie6y by gchaincl@mastodon.social
2022-04-14T19:33:21Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@aral what would be an accurate definition of free speech?
(DIR) Post #AIU7bVULjg1A2wHkcy by Hyolobrika@berserker.town
2022-04-15T20:47:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@gchaincl The freedom to say anything @aral approves of, presumably.
(DIR) Post #AIU7ix3jcvEzaBO1Hk by amcooper@mastodon.technology
2022-04-14T14:04:57Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@lucifer @aral That may be how it’s defined in USA, but that’s not at all how it is in practice, because the government, as we continue to see, is content to allow billionaires to constrain speech. Ugh.
(DIR) Post #AIU7ixnSstovs0mXZ2 by lucifer@evil.social
2022-04-14T14:23:07.020Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@amcooper@mastodon.technology @aral@mastodon.ar.al flies right over your headDid you read what you replied to?
(DIR) Post #AIU7iyTINNHTxkLwlU by amcooper@mastodon.technology
2022-04-14T14:25:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@lucifer @aral Of course. Was I unclear? The same government that defines it empowers corporations to constrain it, thereby rendering the definition moot.
(DIR) Post #AIU7iz6e14kxvmlN68 by lucifer@evil.social
2022-04-14T14:30:00.333Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@amcooper@mastodon.technology @aral@mastodon.ar.al The definition does not pertain to corporations. Therefore the gov does not need to "empower" anything as it is not covered by the law itself. It works as written, if you go and read it. "The gov shall not", not "no one shall not". The law is literally written to protect you from the gov itself, and nothing else.
(DIR) Post #AIU7izpfJglkBPpKGu by amcooper@mastodon.technology
2022-04-14T14:38:20Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@lucifer @aral Ok maybe the laws of USA are protecting you from the government. That has not been my experience here.
(DIR) Post #AIU7j0YgcImWR2tHRg by amcooper@mastodon.technology
2022-04-14T14:40:10Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@lucifer @aral I may indeed have misread your initial post.
(DIR) Post #AIU7j17mVor2BtJJ9E by lucifer@evil.social
2022-04-14T14:55:44.583Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@amcooper@mastodon.technology @aral@mastodon.ar.al My posts were only there to help make things clearer. And honestly, I think there are many people that think freedom of speech encompasses far more than it actually does. Again, this only applies to the USA. I am sure other countries have laws that are similar, but I am unfamiliar with them.
(DIR) Post #AIU7j1nG1c20GWiQnQ by mimimi545644@mastodon.social
2022-04-14T21:17:31Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@lucifer @aral @amcooper Free speech is a concept, not the 1st amendment. Multinational megacorporations and billionaires are more powerful than most governments nowadays. If they want to shut you up, they have the means to do so. You're right that not everyone in the world is subject to laws made by the United States Congress though...
(DIR) Post #AIU7j2bF1m0ulY6Lho by Hyolobrika@berserker.town
2022-04-15T20:48:09Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mimimi545644 @lucifer @aral @amcooper I thought they were a private company and they could do what they wanted. Lmfao.
(DIR) Post #AIU8VFY4BgUApGbWEa by thatguyoverthere@charlestown.social
2022-04-15T20:57:12.597952Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@lucifer @aral that’s just evidence that we don’t have free speech any more. The whole point of free speech was that the government couldn’t limit your ability to say things they don’t like. If they can abridge our right to speak then it’s not free.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.
(DIR) Post #AIUyTyNNk9wytTJpWS by gchaincl@mastodon.social
2022-04-16T06:37:40Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Hyolobrika @aral I don't think that's what @aral meant.I'm genuinely intrigued about it.
(DIR) Post #AIVtyVtPHUgud3ZEMy by Hyolobrika@berserker.town
2022-04-16T17:23:47Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@gchaincl @aral I mean he once publicly shamed and blocked someone who said something he didn't like about climate change (literally just posted a link to a video criticising it), so I'm not hopeful that his definition of "free speech" extends to saying things that go against his political ideology disguised as a descriptive claim about the state of the climate.