basically just came down to i don't support any propagation of "X is not 'speech', that way i can avoid saying i'm against free speech."
it's okay to be against free speech. you may get spaced or airlocked for that belief but you believe actions have consequences anyway.
but moderationyeah but that was always allowed. government speech provisions were there to protect the town square. the problem is just when a corpo takes over the town square and starts being hyper partisan with rules enforcement.
🇳🇱
Penises are not speech, therefore rape is not an expression of free speech
the problem is speech protections are there to stop the government from jailing you for having opinions the government deems to be wrongthink.
because people are failures at this whole constitutional republic concept, judges legislated from the bench that "if we just say it's not speech we can ban it."
well no, they can't, and those people are committing treason. problem is people now have bought in to this idea that there exists 'protected' and 'unprotected' speech, which actually even that is more coherent but its still derived from rulings claiming certain speech "isn't speech."
basically its a circumvention on the ban of wrongthink laws by claiming wrongthink isn't thought so the rule on thinking can't ban it.
i still agree that a private chat group is free to go "being racist is off topic" as long as its enforced coherently. i just don't agree wiith propagating the mind virus we can just reclassify bananas as apples for tax reasons.
@icedquinn I mean, there is a type of spoken expression that I'd argue isnt speech in the sense of free speech, but I also agree that is a very dangerous and slippery slope.
Deaming that screaming "fire" in a theater is not protected by free speech is something I find perfectly acceptable.
i saw someone worked out the answer to this is to sue that person for fraud.
@icedquinn cant sue someone for fraud if its protected as free speech either.. luckily fraud is not protected by free speech either (its a verbal contract and contracts arent free-speech protected).
@icedquinn how ya figure.. states and their citizens are beholden to the constitution.
Congress shall enact no law abridging freedom of speech nor of the press
because that’s what it says.
@icedquinn yes but in 1866 the 14th amendment expanded it to the states, which has been confirmed by the supreme court interpretation of the 14th amendment.
> states can't abridge
sure, but the amendment says "congress" so i don't see how that applies. sounds like another brain fart.
@icedquinn from the 14th amendment:
"nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"
The bill of rights has been interpreted to fall under "liberty" and "due process" by the supreme court (and I would agree). Thus this clause extends freedom of speech to the states as per current legal precedence.
the speech amendment is scoped.
@icedquinn its not about just what judges say, like I said I agree with them.
14th amendment clearly states that a state can not deny a citizen liberty. The bill of rights was defined as an enumerations of the liberties the constitution intended to encode. Therefore interpriting that clause in the 14th amendment to extend freedom of speech to the states and its people makes perfect sense.
Its also important to understand context IMO. The only reason the bill of rights didnt originally extend to the states was because at the time state laws always overrode national laws, so it couldn't extend to the states. By 1866 however the law on this reversed and national laws overrode state laws. and by 1868 the 14th amendment was written to effectively ensure the "liberties" that were originally written under a different structure now explicitly extended beyond just congress.
i don't see how a provision that says
> this entity is not allowed to ban bananas. everyone else is allowed to do anything not mentioned here.
somehow is expanded by
> entities below us have to give due process
that's fine, but the law that overrides all laws only applied to the originating entity banning bananas.
the only way this makes any sense is if the subordinant entities are now also the fed, which they aren't, because you could also argue by that logic the tenth amendment doesn't exist and there are no states.