• Atomic@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    20 hours ago

    There have been numerous instances of successful lawsuits against the government where someone’s freedom of speech was infringed upon. They were awarded monetary compensation.

    The purpose of “Freedom of speech” is to protect you from the government.

    A news media company collaborating with the government is certainly immoral. But it’s not a “Freedom of speech” violation.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      20 hours ago

      There have been numerous instances of successful lawsuits against the government where someone’s freedom of speech was infringed upon.

      For every singular success there’s been a thousand failures. And the long arc of history has bent towards censorship, particularly in the 21st century.

      The purpose of “Freedom of speech” is to protect you from the government.

      The courts do not protect your freedom to speak. They occasionally promise compensation years after you’ve had your speech quashed and your organization busted up. But the bar for the plaintiff is high and the cost of legal fees is crippling.

      A news media company collaborating with the government is certainly immoral.

      This isn’t about morality. A news company manager that acts at the behest of a government agency bureaucrat in exchange for financial compensation is an agent of the government. In the same way that a private security guard paid with public money is a cop.

      You’re not free. Your oppression has been monetized.

      • Atomic@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        20 hours ago

        Your misunderstanding of what constitutes Freedom of speech is utterly irrelevant to what it actually is.