Re:Judge rules White House pressured social networks to “sup...
by sbuttgereit on Thursday July 06, 2023 @10:31AM
(#36616425)
Naw, just redefined to something which allows complete freedom of speech... so long as it's the right speech.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Judge rules White House pressured social networks to “sup...
by web3-is-a-scam on Thursday July 06, 2023 @01:26PM
(#36619562)
Which is the entire point of the first amendment. You don’t need to protect popular speech from censorship.
Re:Judge rules White House pressured social networks to “sup...
by didntcheck on Thursday July 06, 2023 @04:27PM
(#36622410)
Yeah I think this is a point people miss. Rights aren't just also for unpopular people and things, they're arguably only for them - because popular people/things are generally not under duress in the first place. So it shouldn't be surprising at all that many debates end up involving unsavoury situations, since that's the only time these safeguards really get put through their paces. I sound like Captain Obvious when I write it down, but I've found it bears repeating
Re:Judge rules White House pressured social networks to “sup...
by cgriswald on Thursday July 06, 2023 @06:20PM
(#36624007)
It doesn’t bear repeating because it isn’t at all true. Unpopular speech does need to be protected but even popular speech can be suppressed by governments and often has been when the government has reason to disagree with it.