←back to thread

145 points perihelions | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
fred_is_fred ◴[] No.45294358[source]
What happened to the party of Free Speech absolutism?

Edit: for those claiming this isn't a free speech issue the President is using the FCC to go after people he doesn't like. He must be a special snowflake.

replies(6): >>45294442 #>>45294468 #>>45294483 #>>45294504 #>>45294528 #>>45294553 #
ordinaryradical ◴[] No.45294483[source]
Their speech was never in jeopardy, they just didn’t like its consequences. And now that they have the upper hand they will try to actively impose the same restrictions which they accused others of placing on them.

Victimhood distorts reality and leads to outsized reprisals.

replies(1): >>45294580 #
AlexandrB ◴[] No.45294580[source]
> Their speech was never in jeopardy, they just didn’t like its consequences.

Can't you say the same about the Jimmy Kimmel situation? He's not in jail, he's free to speak, his employer just didn't want to back him up on it.

All of the arguments used to excuse cancel culture ("right to speech not to a platform", "it's a company censoring you, not the government", "freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences") are now being leveraged by the right. Why did anyone think it would go any other way? Was the assumption that the left would own the cultural zeitgeist forever? This whole approach to politics was folly.

replies(4): >>45294693 #>>45294729 #>>45294761 #>>45294866 #
1. ordinaryradical ◴[] No.45294693[source]
I think you’re right on Kimmel while being wrong about TFA.

The president does not get to dictate broadcasting licenses on the basis of whether or not they criticize him but ABC is not required to platform Kimmel.

(I think it’s a bad move to deplatform people and bad for democracy but it’s been misconstrued into an issue of constitutional guarantees and it is not one.)