231
"I believe the rights enshrined in the 1st amendment applies to everybody I agree with."
this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2025
231 points (98.7% liked)
Technology
40460 readers
288 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
First Amendment guards against state repercussions for speech, with exceptions. Careful not to conflate the legal and colloquial usages.
“I’m going to use Congressional authority and every influence with big tech platforms to mandate immediate ban for life of every post or commenter that belittled the assassination of Charlie Kirk. I’m also going after their business licenses and permitting, their businesses will be blacklisted aggressively, they should be kicked from every school, and their drivers licenses should be revoked. I’m basically going to cancel with extreme prejudice these evil, sick animals who celebrated Charlie Kirk’s assassination.”
- Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA)
That's abridgement of the First Amendment.
Which is why everyone needs to get off of twitter. Especially government accounts.
So, he wants to make it so just criticizing Charlie Kirk is off limits, now?
Lol! Wut? I thought this guy told everyone he was a "free speech absolutist". What a clown.
Without exception, "free speech absolutists" just want to say a specific brand of horrid shit themselves without social blowback. It never applies to free speech as a legal concept, and certainly never applies to speech they disagree with.
Without exception? No, I don't think that's true, it's just the loudest ones, unfortunately.
For genuine free speech supporters like me, this is a problem because it makes the phrase "free speech" look bad and thereby contributes to a decline in it.
That's why I specifically called out the phrase "free speech absolutist".
In my experience the vast majority of people who truly do advocate for freedom of speech are willing/able to understand nuances such as the fact that your freedom of speech does not grant you immunity from the social consequences of unpopular speech. I.e., other people exercising their freedom to disagree or opt not to use their private platform to host your speech. The "absolutists" will unironically call that censorship, rather than recognize other people are not compelled to engage with their speech.
I prefer to think in these terms: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/moderation-is-different-from-censorship
I think that free speech laws are what stopped us from being proactive against these intolerant fascist views.
They turn tolerance from a social contract into a "paradox" where we have to tolerate the intolerant until they take over.
If we didn't have such strict free speech laws, we could have deplatformed and jailed these people back when they were at the "protest with confederate and Nazi flags" stage and not had to deal with the neo-fascist government stage.
To put it another way punching Nazis should be legal. A Nazi is a direct existential threat to Jewish people and other minorities. Parading with Nazi paraphernalia in public is violence towards others and punching Nazis is valid self defense. American free speech and self defense laws were written to exclude "inducement" of violence, but that's been whittled away by the supreme Court, including a ruling that walking around with Nazi flags in a Jewish neighborhood wasn't bad enough to permit the residents to retaliate in any way because of "free speech".
His stance on free speech has been well established for a long time now. He champions free speech so long as it's his speech. Any speech that disagrees with him is, in fact, itself an affront to free speech.
Shut the fuck up, Elon. We'll be celebrating your death, as well.
I'll celebrate his even more
Maybe that why he wants to stop this, in the hopes someone will do the same for him.
Ding ding ding!
wE hAtE cAnCeL cUlTuRe aNd lOvE fReE sPeEcH
How does … he… have any authority over Microsoft employees… you know what I’ll just read the article
*Free speech **absolutist
*only available via subscription
**absolutely horseshit
This is really a much more interesting article:
https://www.theverge.com/policy/776840/charlie-kirk-death-social-media-jawboning
I was going to quote segments but it's really worth reading the whole thing. Senators shitting all over the first amendment and quotes from Charlie Kirk shitting all over them in return.
This!
Thanks for sharing. I wanted to pick up some quotes, but holy shit!
OY
This fuckin' timeline
Elon Musk should be next IMO.
That means he's very afraid
Musk, name people around the world would perforate you if they had the chance. Better hide in your bunker
People really don’t like either of those guys.
Musk should go into hiding.
There’s no coming back from where he is.
Ted Cruz: Getting a little hot in here, isn't it AOC?
AOC: Only for MAGAs, Ted.
What has this have to do with technology? Wishing someone else is the next one.
Awful bait TheVerge. Appropriate headline:
Gamergate/Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda/RMVP 2.0 want to control Blizzard gooners from free speech&press.⛓️💥
Mark Kern hasn't tasted a .305, because he lives in best🇰🇷.
⛓️💥
Brokes link to prevent DDoS.
view more: next ›