• lemmy_outta_here@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    20 hours ago

    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.

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

      OP’s quote is about being able to voice controversial opinions without consequences

      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.

    • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      19 hours ago

      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.