←back to thread

64 points djoldman | 5 comments | | HN request time: 2.191s | source
Show context
ognarb ◴[] No.44403733[source]
The US is not only restricting the free speech of their own citizens but also from citizens of other countries...
replies(1): >>44403781 #
philipjoubert[dead post] ◴[] No.44403781[source]
[flagged]
owebmaster[dead post] ◴[] No.44403834[source]
[flagged]
1. zeroCalories ◴[] No.44403844[source]
He just asked for examples? Can you give some?
replies(2): >>44404033 #>>44404036 #
2. carefulfungi ◴[] No.44404033[source]
1. University funding cancellations because of disfavored but 1A protected protests

2. Attacks on law firms with disfavored clients.

3. Federal law suits against media like NBC, ABC, and investigations of NPR and others.

4. Increased arrest rate for “obstruction” by ICE of people protesting immigration enforcement.

5. Blanket bans on “DEI” speech and retaliation against organizations that promote DEI.

6. An executive Order mandating that schools teach “patriotic” content or lose funding.

7. Banning trans people from the military directly infringing their 1A protected rights to express their identity.

8. Take overs of institutions like the Kennedy Center for the Arts, dismissal of the Librarian of Congress, content regulation of the Smithsonian, take-downs of federal data and images related to disfavored speech.

9. Revoking green cards because of 1A protected cards, denying visas, travel bans - all limiting what speech and associations are available to US citizens.

10. FTC merger rules forbidding coordinated boycotts.

11. Banning the Associated Press from the press room. General attacks on the media as “the enemy of America.”

replies(1): >>44404473 #
3. ben_w ◴[] No.44404036[source]
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/new-us-justice-dept-policy-...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/09/anti-protest...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/25/pro-palestin...

4. zeroCalories ◴[] No.44404473[source]
1. This isn't suppressing free speech. This is classic new deal government. I thought liberals liked that?

2. No one is obligated to work with you, or give you clearances if you're suspected of being against state interests.

3. I thought we were all for government crackdowns on corrupt corporations?

4. Many of these people are obstructionist.

5. DEI is discriminatory. I thought liberals were anti-discrimination?

6. More new deal government. Nothing improper here. You just lost the vote.

7. The military is not obligated to allow anyone to serve. It's a job, like any other. Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences, pal.

8. Being selective of what you promote isn't suppression of speech. Is it suppression of speech when Confederate monuments are removed, or did you lose the vote?

9. Those are not citizens.

10. This is regulation to prevent anti-competitive behavior and harassment.

11. Not free speech. You're not obligated to be in a press room

TBH, seems like you care that you lost, not about freedom. Why should I give you any freedom when your goal is to deprive me of mine?

replies(1): >>44404580 #
5. carefulfungi ◴[] No.44404580{3}[source]
I list several instances of the government coercing speech. You conclude that taking away my freedom is a legitimate goal. Strange.
replies(1): >>44404620 #