NYPD bypassed facial recognition ban to ID pro-Palestinian student protester

Quite a lot. The #1 right, for instance: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_t...

Curious why this is downvoted?

I've noticed many right-leaning tech types give quite a lot of lip service to free speech when it's about someone getting banned from a mailing list for being an asshole, and not so much when it's the government quashing protest against genocide. I'll personally always defend the idea of free speech, no matter the side.

Because the "fire" excuse is a favorite of those who like the 1A when it protects them.

> Curious why this is downvoted?

Probably people reading the article title without reading the headline, not realizing that that it's not only literally about shouting in movie theaters.

But tbh most commenters/voters on this site are reflexively imperialist, which is not surprising for a forum run by (and for!) capitalists in the imperial core. That's doubtless a big factor as well.

Everybody feels the need to defend government overreach when it’s in their favour. The most famous example is any non-libertarian political leaning with free speech, but it was the same deal with the “left” complaining about Chevron v. USA being overturned when their guy was in power.

Yeah. It's not cool to be principled anymore, I guess...

>I'll personally always defend the idea of free speech, no matter the side.

You attacked the idea of free speech for the other side in the same comment where you said this. I would assume based on reference to government infringements that you're referring to the first amendment as "free speech" if you hadn't specifically emphasized "idea"; conservatives have no real first amendment case, but they do get censored and suppressed by people with power. The idea of free speech is very much still in play when university admin cancels a guest speaker or a forum moderator only allows left-wing or non-political posts. What am I missing here?

No? I would defend the first example too, which is why I specified the idea rather than the letter (the 1A). Is it so rare to see someone who genuinely cares about this stuff, not just for those who agree with me? That I think they're an asshole is irrelevant.

Then you should read the article.

I did. I believe this sort of stuff to be, at least morally, a violation of the 4A. It's no secret that the anti-Israel protests have gotten an inordinate amount of attention from the law relative to any harm caused, and overstepping bounds like this even to catch actual criminals (as happened here) isn't worth the price paid in liberty.

My comment was targeted at the government/ICE's notorious targeting of anti-Israel protesters broadly. It's absolutely clear that we're giving up rights left and right for this total farce, the same way we did for 9/11. It is imperative to the survival of liberal democracy that this ceases.

I've been pretty consistent in terms of supporting people saying things and even expressing views I find abhorrent.

I don't consider throwing rocks/bricks at people "free speech". I also don't consider launching fireworks into crowded buildings "free speech" either.

Oh, sorry, I misunderstood you. If someone is being an asshole on a mailing list, I don't think it's a free speech issue to remove them, and I took that example in context to mean you were saying all conservative gripes were non-issues like that.

>Is it so rare to see someone who genuinely cares about this stuff, not just for those who agree with me?

Yes, absolutely. I can name maybe 8, including the both of us.

You're of course correct, but it's a complex issue. See my other comment for details.