this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2025
2089 points (99.2% liked)
Microblog Memes
9172 readers
1373 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Being fired from your job over things you said has nothing to do with the right to free speech. That right means the government won't punish you. It does not stop anyone else from punishing you.
But you can easily make the argument MSNBC is suppressing there own "journalists" speech to not face backlash from the government. Just because the government isn't directly coming after an individual doesn't mean that they aren't at least attempting to suppress speech.
We've plenty of examples of Trump ignoring outlets he doesn't favor. And I wouldn't be surprised if he's outright banned some from attending press events.
What if the government is putting pressure on the organization.
Then it becomes a free speech issue.
Constitutional right to free speech? Yes. The overall philosophical concept of free speech? Less so.
It's just that only one side gets punished for it.
Unless you think we were endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights.
In which case the law is only there to enforce what we already own. And the concept of "Free Speech" goes past just laws.
Yes, some people misunderstand it. And others are too quick to "correct" them, even when their target is off.
Nobody is saying firing him was illegal.
Thank you! Seems like very few people understand the concept of free speech.
It doesn't mean you can say whatever you want with no consequences, which is seeming what a lot of people believe
Problem is there's a big undertone of the administration penalizing news organizations that day things that are unwelcome. Interfering with their business dealings, limiting their access to information they need to provide coverage, bending things a bit to help out "news" outlets that are treating him well.
No, you are conflating the first amendment, a limited protection of free speech, with free speech itself.
It is very much a violation of free speech, its just not illegal. It still is immoral.
EDIT: fixed second amendment to first amendment
*first amendment
Though some do conflate guns with free speech as well...
Thanks for the correction, my bad
I guess I misunderstood something here.
I just don't think you should be able to say whatever you want without any consequences. Eg. Call someone a slur, get punched in the face. I don't think that's a violation of free speech
I also agree you should not be able to call people slurs. You should be punished but not by your employer.
But neither divisive nor hateful is a slur, neither are they inaccurate statements about Kirk. NBC most likely did not take the decision to fire the guy based on ethics.
Now let's say another news anchor grows some balls and says "Israel is committing genocide" and their channel fires them. Do you also think it's not a violation of free speech? That they should face consequences?
I am talking about free speech, not the second amendment, morality and ethics not US law.