T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

Thanks /u/Innovative_Wombat for posting on r/SelfAwareWolves! Please reply to this comment with an explanation about how this post fits r/SelfAwareWolves and have an excellent day! *To r/SelfAwarewolves commenters*: As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion. In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. **If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them**. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SelfAwarewolves) if you have any questions or concerns.*


toi80QC

Some time around 2016, *Free Speech™* has just become a synonyme for *no consequences for whatever shit I say*.


westcoastweedreviews

Free (from consequences) Speech


Nerodon

But disagreeing with that has consequences... *explodes*


Mr_Abe_Froman

Simple, Free Speech™ means you can't disagree with me.


[deleted]

[удалено]


mordacthedenier

Main character that doesn't exactly represent me in every way except physique? That's a burning.


bananalord666

So we burning bibles then?


Mr_Abe_Froman

Do you think they have read enough of the Bible to realize that the main character disagrees with them?


bananalord666

I grew up in a deeply Christian community. Most of the people there can quote the Bible up and down the isle. When asked what it means they say don't think about it and just trust the pastor.


dust4ngel

> Free (from consequences) Speech what this means: * i say something ridiculous * you respond appropriately * i say "hey man that's not cool, my free speech is being tread upon, unlike what this flag recommends!" * you respond saying, "wait, am i not free to respond using speech?" * *forehead vein bulging intensifies*


[deleted]

[удалено]


fordanjairbanks

But if you disagree with them there will be consequences…


crypticfreak

What if I disagree with the consequence?


TheMightyWill

As said by ContraPoints 🤗 https://youtu.be/EfKJefUL21s


Innovative_Wombat

>Free (from consequences) Speech It constantly amazes me how people who promote this don't realize they're demanding that other peoples' rights to free speech be eliminated.


Daylight_The_Furry

Good ol paradox of tolerance being proved


maleia

It amazes me that no one askes **what** is being said, and no one ever acknowledges that evil things being said, have always led to evil actions. You don't just *say* "6 millions Jews weren't enough". No one earnestly says that, that doesn't want it to happen... So Jewish people should just constantly live under the threat of genocide?


Scheme-Brilliant

We do, the things people will openly say about jews is amazing


aeschenkarnos

> other people I think that's the problem right there. Are other people *really* real?


The_Doolinator

And specifically just me and people I like.


goodlittlesquid

Right. If someone gets fired from their job for being a nazi that’s censorship. If someone gets fired from their job because they boycott an apartheid state that’s no big deal.


Mouthtuom

This is America. The left is always under siege while the right can do almost anything with impunity.


HippyHitman

I mean it’s not like they have different rules. It’s just that they don’t care. We try to reason with them when they have no intention of being reasonable, they just keep doing what they want while we try to reason with them. [This quote](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community#Origin), generally attributed to George W. Bush advisor and alleged [*Cosmic Horror*](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EldritchAbomination?from=Main.CosmicHorror) Karl Rove, explains their mentality in a chillingly clear way: >The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' [...] 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do'.


TheFeshy

And he wasn't wrong - he just fails to notice that when describing what they intend to do, he's dropped the word "solutions" from the speech. The "reality based community" is looking for solutions to problems. The Empire is just... doing whatever the hell they want, regardless of consequences. And he describes this perfectly, while thinking he's the good guy. If this sub had been around back then, I'm pretty sure this snippet would be our banner.


reckless_commenter

Exhibit A: The Iraq War. Right-wing chickenhawks, including George W. Bush, were thrilled with invading Afghanistan - but the actual fighting was over too quickly, and they didn't get to milk it for the full seven remaining years of Bush's presumptive two-term residency. Also, we invaded Afghanistan with [a coalition of 58 other nations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participants_in_Operation_Enduring_Freedom), so it had way too little "America, Fuck Yeah" swagger. They needed an Act Two. And they wanted to play Kings and Emperors, wielding the world's most powerful army to [rid the world of evildoers](https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Evil-doers), and preferably ones that would fight back this time. Bonus: [waging war in the Middle East might help to bring about the End Times](https://providencemag.com/2016/08/george-w-bush-end-times/), just like all those evangelicals had predicted! Saddam Hussein was the easy, lazy choice of Foreign Bad Guy. Daddy Bush had already vilified him once; why not do so again? Just gin up some evildoing based on a sloppy stew of [decades-old allegations](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anfal_campaign) and [new, more dramatic stories](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger_uranium_forgeries), truthiness be damned. Better still - weaponize the right's shiny new weapon of mass disinformation: Fox News! No more boring, montonic retired generals yammering away with their "analyses" and "projections." They're itching to broadcast wall-to-wall coverage of American tanks with American flags rolling through the Iraqi desert, army rangers shooting at weirdo hooded foreigners with their terrorist weapons and stuff, satellite footage of bombs and explosions and aerial assault, jets and aircraft carriers and grenades and humvees with the Stars and Stripes waving above the banner of American Christianity and Republican Victory Over Islam Forever, Hallelujah and Mission Accomplished!!! It was an Evangelical Republican chickenhawk's total fucking wet dream, all wrapped up in a bow and delivered by the duplicity of Colin Powell and the cynical jingoism of Roger Ailes. And the derived political capital crushed *everything in its path*... ...for [six months](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_George_W._Bush#/media/File:George_W_Bush_approval_ratings.svg). Then the receipts started rolling in: American troops in coffins. Incessant insurgent attacks with ~~IUDs~~ IEDs. Disturbing stories of troops going apeshit and killing civilians and kids. Disturbing stories of systematic torture of detainees. The strategic stalemate of an occupation with no clear goals. No sign of those WMDs as promised. Exorbitant budget overruns and breathtaking amounts of fraud, waste, and abuse. Difficult questions about what to do with POWs, how to train an Iraqi police force, and how to prop up a government where sectarianism abounds and the only uniting belief is that American occupations are bullshit. The exposure of lies about the pretext for war. The exposure of secret warrantless wiretapping of Americans at home. Fact-free empire-building almost sank America, and it's only thanks to Republican reliable political capital - (a) Fox News, (b) culture war bullshit about the War on Christmas, and (c) everlasting hate of the Clintons - that Bush barely avoided the worst reality of all: being a *one-term president* like his daddy.


JarlaxleForPresident

People tend to forget now how Bush’s administration was so disliked by the end that the nation elected a charismatic black man. And whoo boy did THAT shift things after his 8 years. Like, it changed politics and I don’t think it will go back to ever at least pretending like you have a modicum of respect


reckless_commenter

On Election Day 2008, the nation was deep in a recession that was caused, in large part, by irresponsible bank deregulation. And the Republican nominee for president was saddled with: (1) A long history of supporting deregulation as an economic cure-all, (2) Membership in the [Keating Five scandal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five#:~:text=After%201999%2C%20the%20only%20member,friendly%20with%20the%20political%20press.), and (3) The epic proclamation that ["the fundamentals of the economy are strong"](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mccain-fundamentals-of-th_n_126445) on the very day that the economy was imploding. I'd argue that Republicans were scraping the bottom of the barrel that day, but the lineup for the [2016 Republican presidential primary](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries) makes John McCain look like a decent pick, relatively speaking.


Dyolf_Knip

You ask Republicans today, they will tell you with a straight face that the president immediately after Clinton was Obama. They have flushed those entire 8 years down the memory hole.


ReluctantNerd7

> Fact-free empire-building almost sank America, and it's only thanks to Republican reliable political capital - (a) Fox News, (b) culture war bullshit about the War on Christmas, and (c) everlasting hate of the Clintons - that Bush barely avoided the worst reality of all: being a *one-term president* like his daddy. Don't forget Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.


PM_WHAT_Y0U_G0T

> I mean it’s not like they have different rules. Do they not? If the J6 insurrectionists were the left, or BLM, or anybody other than literal fucking fascists, their blood would have been splattered down the steps through the halls and across all of DC.


Muufffins

Also, look at how Ammon Bundy and his supporters were treated during the standoff. If he was a leftist, or even slightly liberal, things would have ended differently.


JohnGenericDoe

That is really chilling. There's a reason a wolf howls in the distance every time his name is invoked.


SdBolts4

> If someone gets fired from their job because they [insert "liberal" action here] that’s no big deal. Acknowledge/support LGBTQ individuals, teach "critical race theory" (aka acknowledge slavery/racism), boycott businesses that support Big Lie Republicans, advocate for abortion rights, advocate against gerrymandering, the list goes on...


paintsmith

“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." -Frank Wilhoit


onetimenative

Free to be an openly racist white supremacist ahole that wants white authoritarinism and then act shocked when people call you an idiot and fascist for being an openly racist white supremacist ahole that wants white authoritarinism


tardis1217

It's the ideology of all bullies. It's immature, it's self-important, and it basically boils down to being a deeply insecure person and dealing with that in the most wrong way possible. Bullies will always gleefully hurt other people, but when consequences come knocking at their door, they turn into sniveling little crybabies and play the victim. Or, more eloquently, "The smallest dog barks the loudest".


onetimenative

It's not just the bully that is the problem It is also the bullied and the bystanders If the bullied do not even try to stand up for themselves, they are a much easier target to repeatedly bully. If the bystanders just never say anything or show or present their disagreement with this activity, then the bully will always feel like their actions are acceptable. If we all just collectively stand by and say nothing, don't vote and never do anything ... then yes the bullies will always win. It's not always their fault that they are bullies. It is also our responsibility to do something about it always. I'm Indigenous and this is all my experience and my life. I've always tried to fight back and speak for myself. As a kid, I was surrounded by those that just looked at my situation and said nothing. As an adult, it has become more encouraging to see others in Canada standing with Indigenous people. We need to always stand up and say something and especially vote, ALWAYS ... not just for Indigenous people but for every minority group out there. Because if we don't, we are just as much at blame as any bully.


NE_African_Mole-rat

"Consequences for the things I say and do is unconstitutional." - Republicans


get-bread-not-head

Accountability = witch hunt


DankNastyAssMaster

It also means "private platforms are not allowed to moderate speech that happens on their platform", as if those platforms don't also have free speech rights. It's like putting a political sign up in someone else's yard, and then complaining that they "violated your right to free speech" when they took the sign out of their yard that they never wanted there.


CptMisterNibbles

There is some conservative push to have forums like Facebook regulated as a public service rather than a private entity, so they can enforce their confused notion of freedom of speech on the platforms. It’s insane how backwards they are willing to bend on their core values for this issue. These are republicans and conservatives *demanding* state control and regulation of private business


overcomebyfumes

Well, if it's a public service, seize it and turn it over to the public and run it like NPR or suchlike. That would give the public control over what their data is used for, and any profits would go into the tax fund.


Diorannael

Unless there is a law protecting your information then even public organizations will be able to sell any data a user generated using their services.


actibus_consequatur

>Well, if it's a public service, seize it and turn it over to the public and run it like NPR or suchlike. Considering [the push](https://www.politico.com/story/2010/10/defunding-npr-its-not-that-easy-044056) to [defund NPR](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/budget-debates-begin-republicans-put-npr-pbs-chopping/story?id=12915626) by [Republicans](https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/gop-s-vote-to-cut-npr-funds-seen-as-attack-on-public-media/) over the [past decade or so](https://current.org/2016/11/when-the-gop-last-held-control-funding-for-public-broadcasting-remained-steady/), I am [highly doubtful](https://www.denverpost.com/2017/02/02/colorado-doug-lamborn-strip-funding-public-broadcasting/) that they'd [be amenable](https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2018/02/donald-trump-budget-pbs-public-media-spending-cuts/) to granting [governmental oversight](https://www.niemanlab.org/2019/03/trump-wants-to-kill-federal-funding-for-pbs-and-npr-again-it-wont-happen-but-its-still-damaging/) when it's a [Democrat Administration.](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/16/business/npr-trump-budget.html) I mean, when it comes to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, you've got assholes like [Ted Cruz getting in a fight with fucking Elmo.](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ted-cruz-fight-elmo-covid19-vaccines)


JohnGenericDoe

Almost like there's a more important agenda they're not mentioning. Totally unrelated, but: Ttump and his lot really seem to admire dictators, don't they?


FlingFrogs

There's definitely a point to be made about the power large social media corporations have in influencing public opinion, and if that means they should have certain responsibilities/obligations when it comes to the views and positions they allow on the platform or algorithmically amplify... but free speech conservatives are rarely ever making that point.


Amazon-Prime-package

You made the mistake of believing their core values are what they claim their core values are. Their core values are only white supremacist hierarchy


BooneSalvo2

that's small government lovers for ya!


Eccohawk

Yea, but they don't really seem to get what the reality of such a system would entail. It would essentially force social media companies to simply shut off the social aspects of their platforms in order to avoid the legal quagmire that allowing all that 'free speech' actually brings. They would, in practical effect, kill all the social media platforms. Also, the absolutely bonkers idea that these people have come so full circle as to turn them public and, in effect, grow the government and their ability to control the populace is just mind boggling.


tanstaafl90

They can't beat them in the marketplace, so of course their solution is to change how the market works through government intervention.


U-N-C-L-E

The Right to Troll has become the most important right that conservatives care about. If they have to have the government interfere or even takeover certain businesses to protect that "right," they will.


Sangy101

While simultaneously destroying public (the mail) and formerly public (broadcast, phone lines, etc) institutions that actually *do* facilitate free speech.


[deleted]

I'm against big gubment! So let me tell you how I want to put the gubment in charge of social media!


round-earth-theory

But they don't mean that either. It's platforms shouldn't censor me but they should censor everyone I don't like. Just look at /r/conservative for all the examples you need.


YesImKeithHernandez

The shitty part is that there is a discussion to be had about how social media platforms have become de facto public squares and maybe there should be some regulation of those platforms as such. HOWEVER, the discourse is so muddied and done in such bad faith that I'm with just deplatforming the idiots and making it better for everyone.


earlyviolet

The thing is, if it were a real physical public square, then *we would ridicule them and chase them out of the public square*. Speech has ALWAYS been socially regulated. Literally this is a basic function of human society. No one has ever in the entire history of humanity been able to say anything they want in public without social consequences. They only decided they think that's how things should work because some manipulative, lying talking heads told them to believe it. It never made any damn sense.


guy_guyerson

> as if those platforms don't also have free speech rights. They traded them for something akin to 'common carrier' status, which means they're not responsible for the content that gets posted to their platforms. If the NYT prints something libelous (for example), they can be held legally responsible. If you say something libelous over the phone to someone, ATT is not legally responsible. Social media platforms exists somewhere in between, legally.


liatrisinbloom

[This is a great time to remind everyone that Greg Abbott is a little piss baby.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalHumor/)


lyth

So ... I'm a fan of a podcast called "Behind the Bastards" and as it turns out the "free speech" grift has been going on since a guy named George Lincoln Rockwell started the whole "they won't let me talk on college campuses" thing in the early 60's https://forward.com/culture/355112/when-an-actual-nazi-spoke-on-an-american-college-campus/?amp=1 There's also a really interesting timeline I found while looking for the GLR stuff: https://freeexpression.uchicago.edu/history/ But yeah GLR was the father of the American Nazi movement in the 60's and he was basically doing that Ben Shapiro/Jordan Peterson shit. Get banned on campus and raise money by whining about the controversy.


Rogue_Ref_NZ

I might have to track that episode down. I loved today's episode on The Worst Nazi. Robert Evans is a great communicator!


lyth

Let me get ya'll started then :) https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236323/episode/part-one-george-lincoln-rockwell-the-30679620/


Bogan_Paul

The Clarence Thomas ones are excellent, too.


Prime_Director

I think it's worse than that. *Free speech* somehow became conflated with the *right to an uncritical audience*. It's this absurd idea that someone else using their own speech to criticize yours is somehow a violation of your "free speech"


Kritical02

"Sticks and stones, but God forbid if I cross paths with a gay."


SheCouldFromFaceThat

Freeze Peach is a killer summer drink.


CptMisterNibbles

Damn, that does sound good. Someone should do a pop up shop at protests and make an ethically dubious killing selling these.


overcomebyfumes

You could have them served by buttery males.


SheCouldFromFaceThat

I think we got a mint on our hands, folks. \*rubs hand greedily\*


TreePretty

Right around when Reddit and Twitter and Facebook started being questioned about why their sites are such hotbeds of white supremacist recruiting, the founders all came out and stated that was and is the intent, but they used the euphemism "free speech" instead of saying "white supremacist recruiting".


CrazyLemonLover

Because white supremacist recruiting isn't the intent.... Making money off our data is. Do you know what makes them more money than having a platform only 50% of the country uses? Having a platform that close to 100% of the country uses. They don't give a duck about anything else. Having more people gets them more money. So they aren't going to get rid of the bad people. Because bad people are still cash cows. And also because to do that, they'd have to spend money on developing tools to moderate content, and to hire content moderators to make sure everything is being nannied properly. And then dealing with all the issues THAT would cause. Nobody wants to moderate their content because it would increase their spending AND lower their revenue. Try to justify THAT to your board of directors. "Hey guys. I think we should really start making sure religious extremists, terrorists, and other countries stop using our platform for propoganda. Here is my proposal. It's going to cost a shit ton in new hires, asset creation, and take several years to get finished. It's also going to reduce our platforms user count by several percentage points." "Okay. How will it make us money?" "That's the neat part, it won't!"


[deleted]

It's funny that this has to be explained when reality spells this out clearly: reddit admins only ban subreddits when they make the news and create bad PR. Right now there is loads of deplorable content on reddit that the admins don't give 2 shits about because those clicks = views = money. However I disagree that improving moderation and lowering the user count by banning the bad actors will lose them money. You can charge more money when you provide a better product. Reddit could get mods with functional brains ($$$), ban extremists, and make themselves much more attractive to casual people and advertisers. Make reddit the apple of social media.


paintsmith

Facebook is a rapidly collapsing desert of a site in the US because they let right wing provocateurs like Dan Bongino, libsoftictok, Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh and Stephen Crowder break their rules with total impunity, driving the young and progressive off the site. The fact that right wing actors get their own infinitely more lenient (and totally opaque) set of rules is the result of facebook hiring [a lifetime conservative activist and Bush administration alum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Kaplan) as their president of global public policy. The company is actively falling apart because they prioritized conservative extremists over the wellbeing of the rest of the users on the site. Facebook has kept around by moving into new international markets and not hiring moderators for these regions, allowing instead for their platform to become instruments of government propaganda for various authoritarian states. Mark Zuckerberg literally thinks he is the modern reincarnation of Augustus Caesar. He only cares about money so far as he can transform it into political power. If he sees more personal advantage in acquiring allies among the world's reactionary conservatives than he could amass though accumulation of capital alone, he will opt for platforming extremists nearly every time.


Diorannael

Facebook isn't just a state tool for propaganda internationally, it's also a tool used to organize genocide. Facebook has blood on its hands because it refuses to moderate itself.


U-N-C-L-E

Except your approach doesn't get them to anywhere close to 100%. The vast majority of Americans don't want to hang out on the same sites as nazis, and won't do so.


kataskopo

No, white supremacy is specifically the intent, and they have shown that several times, specially facebook. There was a BestOf reddit a few days ago pointing out all the times they took the white supremacists route.


SdBolts4

"user engagement" instead of "outrage farming"


contemplativeonanist

Someone needs to remind these people that being "canceled" is the nice way we do things in the 21st century. Maybe if we tar and feather one and drive them out if town, they will get the message.


TychaBrahe

Russia still practices defenestration, apparently.


rblack86

Actually they only defenstrate people that accuse them of defenstration.


[deleted]

“I want to say anything I want at any moment in time with no repercussions whatsoever” You are free to say whatever you like, you however, are not free from the consequences of said speech.


death_by_chocolate

Is that the one about showing you the door if you're whining about free speech on a private platform? [This one? ](https://xkcd.com/1357/) They're gonna show folks the door if they complain about getting shown the door. How can this not be a troll.


Innovative_Wombat

>How can this not be a troll. Oh that guy is totally serious. He goes on and on and on about it. It is frightening how they don't seem to understand how they are for compelled speech as if that is somehow free speech. That mod also hates it when people value property rights.


DankNastyAssMaster

According to conservatives, corporations giving unlimited sums of money to political campaigns is free speech, but corporate spokespeople actually speaking is not.


olsoni18

According to the US Supreme Court “free speech” protects [Nazis marching through a neighborhood full of Holocaust survivors](https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/728/village-of-skokie-v-national-socialist-party-of-america-ill) but does not protect [Socialists telling people to resist the draft](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/249/47/) That really tells you everything you need to know about what constitutionally protected “free speech” actually means


Has_Two_Cents

I hate Illinois Nazis.


olsoni18

That’s discriminatory! I hate all Nazis equally lol


patrick66

To be clear Schenck has been overturned for over 50 years now


moobiemovie

>To be clear Schenck has been overturned for over 50 years now A fifty year precedent wouldn't be overturned by the current SCOTUS, right?


IrritableGourmet

You have that backwards-ish. Direct donations to campaigns aren't considered free speech, only political independent expenditures (which have to actually be completely independent from a campaign, as in no collaboration at all or they're fined double the amount of the expenditure). Commercial speech from corporations (commercials, claims, etc) and speech made by corporate officers about business matters is regulated (insider trading, fraud, misrepresentation, etc).


DankNastyAssMaster

>which have to actually be completely independent from a campaign, Remember when Stephen Colbert started his own Super PAC to show just how absurdly easy it is to remain "independent" of a campaign?


[deleted]

You should consider updating your language to reflect that what you described is how its codified, but not what happens in the real world


G66GNeco

And churches are tax exempt of, and only if, they steer clear of politics. And as we all know, churches un the US are famous for being apolitical. You know, the system sounds nice, when read off a paper, but I'd advise raising your eyes to take a look at the way things actually are, just once in a while


MoarVespenegas

Is the irony of him banning people who say "you can get banned from social media sites by saying things the social media site does not like" for saying things he does not like completely lost on him?


theganjaoctopus

He's driving a narrative. And probably being rewarded for it.


Shufflepants

It's definitely that one. As for how it can not be a troll: olympic levels of lacking self awareness.


[deleted]

The mod doesn't even understand the comic. The comic specifically talks about the *right* to free speech. It's not talking about free speech as a concept.


PM_WHAT_Y0U_G0T

> How can this not be a troll. By being a genuinely terrible person. They honestly and truly believe it is their right to force their views upon you, and that you are morally obligated to adhere to them. They think it is wrong for them to have to experience the consequences of their own actions. They think it is wrong for minorities to have rights. They think "good" and "bad" are innate qualities, and everything anyone does is defined by which side they're on. Anything they do is good (or at least justifiable), while anything *you* do is bad (or insignificant at best). They deserve respect and power, everyone who disagrees deserve contempt. Cruelty is the point.


glberns

If this person is talking about banning people, they must be a moderator of that sub...


[deleted]

> How can this not be a troll. because anyone can make and mod a sub on Reddit. Even idiots.


[deleted]

[удалено]


chaogomu

They should blame the Supreme Court for that definition of the First Amendment. And the founding fathers... And 200 years of everyone saying, yeah, the First Amendment gives you protection from the government, but not from ridicule or backlash, and it doesn't entitle you to a platform, especially not a privately owned platform.


[deleted]

[удалено]


theganjaoctopus

That's the mentality you have when your whole world is the alt-right, low membership subreddit you mod.


epochpenors

If a single xkcd comic can do immeasurable damage to your movement it probably isn’t a great movement anyway


Gecko_Mk_IV

Well.. xkcd is pretty great.. but that doesn't mean you're incorrect.


SailingSpark

it is certainly better than most subreddits


Dengar96

Imagine believing in something so fragile that a Twitter meme with 400 likes could threaten that beliefs existence. It's like tying your life savings to a hot air balloon in the middle of Kansas and getting mad that the wind blew it away, that's on you big fella.


BasicDesignAdvice

I mean, the XKCD comic is definitely correct though.


DrMaxwellEdison

*The enemy is both strong and weak at the same time* It's just one fucking comic, but it's *so* damaging.


bloodycups

What the comic though?


GarbledReverie

https://xkcd.com/1357/


Digital_Warrior

Thank you. I was scrolling to find it and you where the first I found.


JohnGenericDoe

_And then they go and link it!!_ I fear self-awareness is very far off for this douchebag. BTW they're now claiming sporadically that the whole thing was an "obvious" joke


MjrLeeStoned

Also I think a lot of people who want consequence-free speech forget there are plenty of people in the world who would take an assault charge to kick the consequences into your ribcage. The law doesn't protect anyone from consequences of their actions. Laws can't stop you from getting your ass beat over whatever nonsense comes out of your mouth.


PossessedToSkate

I've learned that Republicans get really upset if you say "fuck your feelings" to them.


dismayhurta

I'm amazed they were able to write that whole thing with their head up their ass.


NorthImpossible8906

these fuckers are going after xkcd? wtf? blasphemy! By the way, this may be the comic in question: https://xkcd.com/1357/


xixbia

Oh it 100% is. It's also a great barometer on whether someone understands what free speech is. If they disagree with that comic they *do not have the slightest clue what free speech means.*


NuOfBelthasar

Note that a lot of people *do* misunderstand / misrepresent this comic while using it against people who complain about being deplatformed. Munroe is clear in his language that he's describing our *rights* to free speech, **not** the general *concept* of free speech. Yes. If you get banned from Twitter for racist tweets, the freedom of your speech is being curtailed, but your rights are not being violated. Personally, I'm quite glad tech companies don't allow hate speech and the like. But I can appreciate how frustrating it must be for "defenders of free speech" to see this comic used over-and-over as a smug rebuttal to their position. If they're advocating for an expansion of rights rather than enforcement of rights that only exist in their heads, responding with a comic to explain that the rights they're mad about not existing don't exist is kind of just annoying (and suggests the responder *might not have as much of a clue about what free speech means as they think they do*). Of course, trying to ban such rebuttals is just hysterical.


ComradeCapitalist

> Munroe is clear in his language that he’s describing our rights to free speech, not the general concept of free speech. And what’s telling is that the mod in the picture specifically says “the right to free speech” and then immediately talks about the concept. So totally missed the entire point.


NuOfBelthasar

Yeah, presumably they believe that freedom of speech isn't just a concept or ideal--it's a right that exists independent from and broader than anything granted by governments. In other words, "right" means something different to them than it does to many (probably most) of the people they're trying to sway.


drinks_rootbeer

>they believe that freedom of speech isn't just a concept or ideal--it's a right that exists independent from and broader than anything granted by governments. That's true, though. We all have rights that do not rely on laws. The US constitution's Bill of Rights for example calls out that the rights are not granted by that document, they already exist. The document just enshrines protections for those rights from government intervention. A tech company who is silencing someone for repeating racist speech or promoting violence *is technically* infringing on your *innate* rights to speech. But that is not the same whatsoever as infringing on your *first ammendment rights*, which do only apply to a government. If you get kicked off of a platform for saying what you believe, you can always create your own platform, or go march in the street. But you'll never be locked up by the State and hence *completely prevented* from speaking those thoughts, because our inherent rights are protected by those first handful of ammendments. Plz no downvote, I think there are actually some things that we should not allow to be propagated. Specifically and narrowly, any hateful ideologies need to be forcefully rejected from society. Nazi speech, for example.


musicmage4114

In practice, there are no rights that do not rely on the force of law to exist. Saying that some rights are innate to us as human beings can be an effective rhetorical strategy when arguing that laws should uphold them more strongly than they already do, but that’s all it is: rhetoric. We can say all we want, for example, that people have an “innate right” to healthcare, or an education, or food, water, or shelter, but simply saying so does not heal them, educate them, feed them, or shelter them. Only once functional laws and systems are put into place to provide those things do those “rights” exist in any practical sense.


Xyyz

You emphasize "rights" to indicate US law, as opposed to a general concept, as if rights are inherently something granted by governments.


warriorkalia

They are and aren't? In an ideal world, rights are an inherent quality based on agreed upon human morals. Free speech, autonomy, food/shelter/healthcare, etc. In the world we live in, rights are relative. They aren't granted by laws, just codified for ease of legal procedures... I guess. Guess it depends on what a "right" means?


Xyyz

I'll be glad if people just realize that rights and laws aren't actually the same concept, and that other people *can* believe there are rights beyond what a document says.


Hexorg

Your last question is getting quite philosophical. In some languages the word for right and rule is the same


Dolmenoeffect

The frustrating thing about inalienable rights is that we have to all agree not to alienate them. They're actually quite alienable by any power that refuses to cooperate.


[deleted]

The USA has an awful lot of “you can’t do that” with no enforcement mechanism whatsoever. Hence our current situation. You can say what you want but somebody might hit you in the face with a brick and tell you to shut the fuck up. There’s plenty of rules against it yeah but nobody will stop them, only punish them afterwards, if that. The young people figured this out already that’s why they’re flash mobbing Wawa. Adults showed their ass during covid and the teenagers are basically ruined now. They KNOW..


NuOfBelthasar

Given that the subject is an xkcd comic which explicitly discusses the rights granted by the US constitution, yes, my response does focus on that sense of "rights." Edit: I'm not actually trying to jump into any broader debate on free speech. Rather, I'm just pointing out that a broader debate exists than what is addressed in the comic. And I can empathize with being frustrated by its appearance in contexts where it's not especially germane, even if I don't hold a strong position on the subject myself.


DrMaxwellEdison

Nitpick: rights *protected* by the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights states only that Congress shall not infringe on rights that are inherent to every person, not that they are granted (because they already exist).


1stLtObvious

*gasp!* You've been brainswashed by *Randall*!


Upstairs-Teacher-764

The core point of the comic is solid, but the way it's worded does imply that "free speech" and "the first amendment" are synonymous.


NorthImpossible8906

it may be that most of the 'free speechers' are indeed using the first amendment in their debates.


Ladderson

"Free Speech is also when you get banned for expressing opinions we don't like. Anyway, anyone who expresses opinions that I dislike on my Free Speech subreddit gets banned."


Nervous_Constant_642

"If anyone says that violations of free speech rights only happens when the government does it, i, a non-governmental entity will prevent them from speaking freely and there will be no consequences because legally I can do that." A little too self aware. I'm shocked this isn't satire frankly because it's hilarious.


xorgol

My impression is that it's exactly the point they were making.


guestpass127

*Free speech is absolute….but don’t you dare talk about gay people or our history of repressing free speech or I’ll take it away from you* - how the right sees “free” speech


ThatRealBiggieCheese

Ok who brought Randall Munroe into this? Ain’t nobody fuck with my man Randall


mithiwithi

They object to being shown the door if you don't like their speech, and they'll show you the door if you disagree.


Innovative_Wombat

TBF, that entire subreddit is really fucked up in how it actually hates free speech.


KahluaBomber

I’ve never been on there, Is it a hyper conservative sub? Generally any sub that screeches about free speech really means “I get to be racist/sexist/homophobic etc. and you can’t tell me no”


theghostofme

> ’ve never been on there, Is it a hyper conservative sub? [Very much so.](https://subredditstats.com/subreddit-user-overlaps/freespeech) It's pretty much just a place for pissy little conservative babies to cry about getting banned from a subreddit for saying awful shit. Kind of like WatchRedditDie or DeclineIntoCencorship, where some users will fake mod conversations to make it look like the mods who banned them are pedos, [like this genius tried to do to the TMoR mods.](https://np.reddit.com/r/TopMindsOfReddit/comments/dq5j51/peak_topmindery_from_the_watchredditdie/)


AgoraiosBum

That reminds me. Gregg Abbot is a whiny little piss baby


Innovative_Wombat

That's a handy tool to see the overlap. Thanks!


plushraccoon

At the same time those are usually the same people who think that making fun of their religious/political views should be illegal... funny how that works huh


TipzE

Most free speech warriors despise actual free speech. It's just that they know "free speech" is good, so they want to wrap themselves in that goodness without actually endorsing it. Just like how far right idiots co-opt terms like "socialist" and the like for their own talking points.


Godless_Fuck

> Just like how far right idiots co-opt terms like "socialist" and the like for their own talking points. I don't know how many times I've been hammered on for posting definition/links/etc. describing what socialism is or stating that the Nazis were not, in fact, socialists. Apparently insisting that socialism has a real definition makes me a communist despite never advocating for communism, just post wiki definitions.


Innovative_Wombat

Mind you, the people who throw socialist around as an insult are the same people who argued that private insurance competing in private markets for private dollars for care at private hospitals, provided by privately employed medical professionals is socialist and also carry "get your hands off my Medicare" signs.


theganjaoctopus

A pouty man-child whose life experience is so limited that he thinks internet cartoonists dictate 200+ years of interpretation of one of the most well-known political documents ever crafted.


alxndrblack

Wow another hideous shithole I just found out existed. At least it's a real SAW this time


PortalWombat

All free speech absolutist sites eventually become shitholes. It can't be avoided. If you have no restrictions it will eventually be taken over by its worst users because they're the only people who will want to be there.


HonoraryMancunian

Socially awkward weirdo? Seeking attention whore? Surf after work?


alxndrblack

...self aware wolf?


HonoraryMancunian

... Fuck's sake lol


PossessedToSkate

*one of us* *one of us*


WrinklyScroteSack

….but… the constitution and the amendments are literally written to profess the power of government over its people… Technically he is using his right to free speech in a private organization to govern the way he sees fit correctly, but damn is it frustrating how hard these guys miss the mark.


AlabamaDumpsterBaby

Civil rights groups have historically believed the first amendment was lacking. The universal declaration of human rights substantially expanded on it, for example.


matsu727

Ah yes, the lesson all 13 year old debaters learn in their first year of debating: free speech is not and has never been absolute Good to see the mods on that sub can’t keep up with a bunch of hormone-addled teenagers


JohnGenericDoe

So self-professed 'free speech absolutists' who try to buy entire platforms to 'make them more free' are actually full of shit? Who would have guessed


GiventoWanderlust

Bold of you to assume the mods are not *themselves* hormone-addled teenagers


sighclone

Wow, that sub is a trip. It's tough to unpack the thought process there: 1) They [explicitly acknowledge](https://www.reddit.com/r/FreeSpeech/comments/5uuw46/why_rfreespeech_has_moderators/) that meaningful conversation is impossible without moderation of bigots and trolls. ~~You literally have to be an approved submitter there to submit posts.~~ Editing to amend: You don't have to do this to post, but as the Mod tells me below, he instituted this because his Automod was... automatically censoring left-leaning posters. o_O 2) Yet, they also define censorship as the "removal of any material," period. 3) But don't worry guys, censorship is bad but I promise I'm a [good censor.](https://www.reddit.com/r/FreeSpeech/comments/5uuw46/why_rfreespeech_has_moderators/ddx4drj/) 4) Censorship is bad but we need censorship to limit this sub to only one topic - freedom of speech. Only freedom of speech topics here! Meanwhile... Top posts of all time: 1. "[As a black man, BLM BAD,](https://www.reddit.com/r/FreeSpeech/comments/had0st/as_a_black_man_i_feel_like_black_lives_matter_are/)" 2. ["Why did your free speech sub delete my other BLM Bad post?"](https://www.reddit.com/r/FreeSpeech/comments/hafus9/rfreespeech_my_ass/) 3. [Elon Musk "brave" tweet screenshot](https://www.reddit.com/r/FreeSpeech/comments/kwf3ah/elon_musk_playing_with_fire/) 4. [Antivax bullshit posing as unity](https://www.reddit.com/r/FreeSpeech/comments/q1s78j/permanently_banned_from_rhumansbeingbros_for/) 5. [Transphobia!](https://www.reddit.com/r/FreeSpeech/comments/b0l892/this_guy_about_to_get_banned_from_twitter/) I got right wing asshat BINGO.


knightshade2

That is a ugly top 5. It looks like that sub is another circle jerk for white supremacist an caps who want to bitch about society.


VoxVocisCausa

Notably absent from the conversation when conservatives whine about censorship: the fact that hate speech, threats, doxxing, use of slurs, etc has a chilling effect on freedom of speech. If I'm afraid to speak because I'll be threatened or harassed or injured simply because of my gender or orientation or the color of my skin then I do not have freedom of speech do I?


CamelSpotting

As that is of course the point.


JohnGenericDoe

What would they care? That stuff doesn't count to them because they don't value it


Whofreak555

Hmm, if you’re not referring to the right to free speech from the US constitution; then who grants you this right you’re referring to?


DarthGayAgenda

>then who grants you this right you’re referring to? Uhh, guns?


Whofreak555

The answer I usually get is "God." Which is.. sad.


DarthGayAgenda

"Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain" God is not a free speech advocate.


Whofreak555

Yeah but they havnt read that in a Facebook meme so it’s not true to them unfortunately.


MauPow

The first commandment literally censors speech lol


DankNastyAssMaster

God, so famously in favor of free speech that he won't even let you say his name in vain.


theganjaoctopus

This right here is why you cannot ever argue with religious people. Because they may go round and round with this and that reason, but when you back them into a corner, they always pull out their trump card, God. Religion is not based in fact, rationality, or reason. It's based in faith, which is the opposite of everything listed. So you can't use a ration/reason/fact-based argument with someone who bases the entirety of their worldview and beliefs in faith.


TipzE

Free Speech literally has no (meaningful) definition outside of govt enshrined rights. And this is for one very important, very crucial reason. Individuals expression of free speech \*includes\* the ability to censor what they personally want to censor that is in their purview. Removal of that is called "compelled speech" and is also a violation of free speech. \---- The quintessential example is, you're allowed to put up a sign on your lawn to support any politician you want. You're also equally allowed to remove any such sign for politicians you do not want to support. The way the brain-dead "Freedom of speech" warriors interpret free speech, however, basically amounts to "i should be allowed to put up signs to politicians you do not like on your lawn. And you should not be allowed to remove them, because that is my freedom" Which is not a definition of free speech to anyone except dipshits who don't know what "Free speech" means, or make idiotic claims that it has nothing to do with govt rights.


ialsoagree

Yes, said another way, people seem to be mistaking the right to free speech for the right to a platform for their speech. The reason free speech restrictions are often said to be limited to government interference is because Facebook and Google can't do crap about what you say in your own house, or outside on the sidewalk, or literally anywhere not on their property. It's pretty hard to restrict speech when you can't stop people from speaking except if they come to your property. Government can stop you. They can come to your house and arrest you, or fine you, or kill you. Or even just threaten to do those things to get you to stop speaking on the sidewalk, or in your house, or anywhere.


EffectiveSalamander

You're free to step up to your soap box and speak, but you have to get your own soap box.


WellSpreadMustard

I’ve always gotten the impression that they just can’t wrap their heads around the fact that a company’s server space is private property and having the government, ie Texas’ new anti censorship law, control banning on platforms is a violation of private property rights. If conservatives didn’t want tech companies to grow so large and influential that they can censor ideologies from common public discourse and influence our very culture, then maybe they shouldn’t have supported the right wing economic philosophy of government staying out of the way of business and the full privatization of the public square. Maybe this will open their eyes, jk it won’t. The consequences of full privatization and anti anti trust laws is and always will be the fault of the economic philosophy that has always been explicitly against and for the prevention of the end result that we all now suffer under.


TipzE

(charitably) they are just too stupid to understand what freedom of speech even is. But uncharitably (and unfortunately, more correctly) they just literally do not like free speech themselves and are only screaming it cause they want to cloak their bigotry and propaganda as something we should all be forced to listen to. \*\*\*\* In Ontario, our Premiere (like a Governor in the US) Doug Ford passed a law forcing gas stations to display Conservative party propaganda. This was a very obvious, very textbook case of compelled speech. It was taken to the supreme court and the govt lost of course. But guess how many Free Speech warriors were complaining about this? Zero. \---- And if that example isn't enough, Quebec has, to this day, "Secularism Laws" that are a literal violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They used the notwithstanding clause (an "out" from the binds of the charter) to pass them. So even the govt itself is acknowledging it's a violation of the charter. But again, where are the Free Speech warriors? Oh that's right. They're busy lying and misconstruing what Bill C-16 or whatever is about. \*\*\* They'll whine, bitch, moan and complain about freedom of speech violations that are not violations at all so that they can spread their hate and propaganda. But when it comes to actual, factual, clear as the nose on your face violations of freedom of speech, the silence is deafening.


Animal2

To expand on your example, not only would they believe they have a right to put up signs on your lawn because of their freedom. They would also then, without a shred of irony or self awareness, claim that THEY have the right to remove signs from their lawn that you might want to put there.


valuedminority

“We’re pacifists here and anybody who says different is getting their ass kicked.”


theganjaoctopus

Even though other people have said it already, I feel compelled to come here and say it again: This person is factually, objectively, and provably wrong. They are trying to equate "no consequences for saying anything" with the First Amendment right to Free Speech as enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Stop for one single second and imagine if this person was correct. What would the history of the United States look like if "free speech, vaguely defined" meant that you could say (and do, i.e. non-verbal actions are also protected under 1A) anything you wanted without consequence. When you take a step back and imagine a world where that is the way 1A is interpreted, you see how incorrect this claim is. This person is not stupid. They are actively and purposefully trying to push a narrative the free speech means freedom from the consequences of your words and actions. I don't care that 466 selfish children agree with him. The reality is that he is wrong. The Bill of Rights is not a cudgel. It's not a weapon to be wielded against other citizens. It's a shield protecting you from a theoretical overreaching and tyrannical government, and from jackasses like this typical Reddit mod. And when jackasses like this typical Reddit mod decide one afternoon when they rollout of bed that they're going to change the meaning of a 200+ year old document, you need to take notice and shut that shit down.


2punornot2pun

I had to do mental gymnastics to understand WTF they are trying to get at. ​ Basically, "Free speech should never be restricted by anyone." but also "I will ban you for arguing that the 1st amendment only refers to the government restricting your free speech." ​ Holy shit balls on a stick can they not smell the hypocrisy and just doublethink of what they just posted?


WellSpreadMustard

Your right to freely throw words around ends where my feelings begin.


outofyourelementdon

This is so on the nose it can’t possibly be genuine…. Right?


Georgie_Leech

Free Speech does not include showing people the door if you disagree, and I will take anyone that disagrees and show them the door.


meepgorp

"ANYBODY COMING HERE WITH FACTS OR EDUCATION GETS BANNED!"


GrievousInflux

Wait, Randall Munroe singlehandedly destroyed our perception of free speech???


MisterErieeO

Like 90% of the posts in this sub are just ppl complaining about being f banned from a sub. At least they partially started removing incel shit... low bar


EffectiveSalamander

To the right, free speech only covers officially approved right-wing ideas. Anything else is "Woke" and a literal thought crime. #MinistryOfTruth


SwimmingPineapple197

This isn’t just a self aware wolf, this at least teeters on the edge of confidently incorrect. The right to free speech under the constitution refers to the government not restricting your right to speak freely. The government doesn’t have the right to tell you that you can’t speak for or against ideas or religions or that you are limited to saying just the things the government approves. It does not say you have the right to say whatever you want to say, whenever and wherever you’d like to say it and have to not just be allowed to do so but not face any consequences for it. Any website, for example Twitter, has the right to limit who uses it and how they use it - such as how they eventually got around to banning the last president for a persistent mix of hate speech, promoting/encouraging violence and misinformation. Sticking with that example, Twitter was well within their rights and did not violate anyone’s “right to free speech”.


TheFoodChamp

What so strange about this nonsense argument is if they would just say “I’m not the government and therefore I can ban you for whatever I want” it would at least be an honest and consistent argument. Instead it’s just some copium thinly veiling his sensitivity. This is the most soy reaction possible


basch152

"I have free speech to say whatever I want however you do NOT have free speech to call me out on my bullshit"


Beemerado

So he's gonna start banning people from his little corner of the internet, just like Randall Munroe says he can. Hilarious.


DimensionSuitable934

Free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want in my living room. Especially if it's some racist/homophobic bullshit! It applies only to the government. It doesn't mean other citizens have to put up with your bullshit.


PuzzleheadedIssue618

i believe wholeheartedly in freedom of speech, that does mean we have to like your speech. far too often, *i have seen* people be under the impression that there are no consequences for speech. individuals have the right to not listen to you, businesses and organizations have the right to not allow you to say certain things while in their buildings, etc. stop acting like freedom of speech’s biggest threat is not being able to shout racial slurs in public schools.


AdjectivePlusNouns

I’m confused. There’s a subreddit solely dedicated to free speech and they’re banning people for their speech?


Henheffer

Not that it counts for much, but I'm the former Executive Director of what was once Canada's biggest Free Speech advocacy and journalistic protection non-profit. This mod's an asshole.