politics

Probably the same mentality as taxes/healthcare

It's always "I shouldn't have to pay for everyone else's healthcare 🤬🤬🤬"

But never "everyone pays less than they already are into healthcare and the actual service becomes free for everyone but wealthy people don't make billions of dollars off your need to live"

The First Amendment prohibits Congress from making laws that limit the freedom of speech, or of the press. That's all it does (with respect to speech). It does not guarantee that anyone who speaks will be listened to, nor does it guarantee that the press will treat every speaker equally. Nor does it mean that those speakers are exempt from the consequences of their statements.

Even with the strong first amendment wording, we do have some exceptions where generally there is another constitutional right that it is weighted against, such as copyright. And there is a long discussion there specifically about whether false statements are protected.

The "Freeze Peach" crowd wants not only the right to spout lies as truth, but they want the right to have the public believe their lies and disbelieve the truth, just because they say so. Our government can't stop them from saying those things, but the rest of us (including the press) have every right to point out how bonkers they are.

Like any right, one person's right to free speech will sometimes conflict with someone else's rights. There are many situations where the right to free speech must yield to other rights. Libel, slander, terroristic threats, racketeering are clear examples.

Americans have more limited speech than most of the developed world. The US is just good at marketing. In political terms, that's propaganda. Almost everything you say that could get you in trouble, really could get you in trouble legally. There are laws for everything in the US.

My fellow citizens are shitheads.

Interesting - as the article notes the first amendment was specifically implemented to protect unpopular view points - which is tricky because it does mean that white supremacists have the same right to voice their ideas as critical race theorists - but how do we balance that hate speech should have the same footing as voicing concerns around oppression?

even more so when those that are oppressed will have a harder time of being heard in the first place? should the law (as the 1st amendment specifically says that a view not held by society is still protected) tolerate hate and bigotry? it appears the nazi bar is guarded by the first amendment :/

But a large minority also thinks it’s acceptable to bar certain subjects or speakers from public debate.

Yeeeah that sounds like dishonest framing.

It's on you to make Nazis shut up, because the government won't. That's what the first amendment means. It doesn't mean all opinions are equal. Your ability to shout "shut the fuck up!" is as protected, legally, as whatever would make you shout that.

But words mean things. Words impact reality. Sometimes those words come from (for example) actual fucking Nazis. You have a moral duty to oppose them, and the shit they spew. There's some room for services and platforms to say they're acting like the state, and being hands-off... but for some reason those platforms don't like you telling Nazis to fuck off.

Note how many sites think it's just the worstest thing ever to call a fellow user any kind of name. For any reason. Hint hint.

And public debate implies widespread respect. You don't have a right to decorum - let alone a podium, or an audience. Students blocking assholes from using their college as a venue have no interacted with that asshole's legal rights. That asshole was not arrested for being a bigot on campus. They were identified, their agenda was opposed, and students used their free expression to petition the administration to shut that shit down.

I would be curious to know how these views change when we break things down further to differentiate between government action vs private action, actively banning things vs passively choosing not to support things, and categorical exceptions to free speech like slander or incitement.

I suspect that some of the people responding would change their answers depending on exactly who is restricting speech, how they are doing it and what their justification is.