this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2025
2087 points (99.2% liked)
Microblog Memes
9172 readers
2879 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
You managed to be technically correct while missing the entire point of the post.
OP's quote is about being able to voice controversial opinions without consequences, not the legal protection specified in the constitution. He is claiming that only one side is ever held to account for saying odious things.
Adhering narrowly to facts without considering context is not demonstrative of good thinking, nor is it typical of good debating.
I would also argue that Democratic "news" companies could fire people for views they deem unacceptable. Just that, for some reason, most "news" (actually more infotainment) companies for some reason tend to be conservative.
This is why this struggle is actually also about economic issues, i.e. what people own how much stuff. This is what should also be considered and tackled, somehow.
I definitely agree that ownership of news media companies is highly problematic. That's why public broadcasters are so important - they are not beholden to private owners.
You ever heard of the saying "Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences"?
The kind of saying people would use in response to being accused of "cancel culture" a couple of years ago.
So, congratulations, you've gone full circle. Except this time around, the shoe is on the other foot.
I'm not here to debate what you think "Freedom of speech" is. I'm informing you of what it is, and what it isn't. Do with that what you will.
Thank you for attempting to inform me, but it was unnecessary. As I mentioned already and as my post made clear, I am aware that there is more than one form of free speech. Your view is parochial; concepts of free speech exist beyond your narrow definition and your narrow country.
I will attempt to explain OP's point again, since you are still somehow missing it. OP is saying that there are consequences for speech if the speaker is liberal and no consequences for speech if the speaker is conservative. OP is saying that standards are applied differently based on your political beliefs. OP does not specify who is meting out the consequences.
The boy who cried wolf. Time and time again. When one actually showed up. No one cared, because no one believed it.
I'm fully aware of what point OOP is trying to make. It just doesn't have anything to do with Freedom of speech.