Free Speech

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

Then we’ll both surely be dead as you’ve chosen to follow me in breaking the rules instead of stopping the match and disqualifying me.

The referee is on your side, he's next after you.

 

[Mister Fister]

I’m dumbfounded here, that statement was so retarded I’m speechless. This is art.

 

[John Badman]

The referee is on your side, he's next after you.

Sounds like nihilistic violent terrorism, you’ll need to shoot the jailers next.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

Sounds like nihilistic violent terrorism, you’ll need to shoot the jailers next.

Weird way to spell "self-defense".

 

[John Badman]

Weird way to spell "self-defense".

It’s okay when you do it but when they do it it’s a violent insurrection where they’re suppressing your 2A rights.

 

[Mister Fister]

Is this performance Art? I mean your posts are so bad they warp into being amazing.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

It’s okay when you do it but when they do it it’s a violent insurrection where they’re suppressing your 2A rights.

Nothing wrong with fighting fire with fire.

 

[John Badman]

Nothing wrong with fighting fire with fire.

You’ll burn down the village.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

You’ll burn down the village.

At least that'll bring attention to you guys pulling guns during boxing matches.

 

[John Badman]

At least that'll bring attention to you guys pulling guns during boxing matches.

I don’t think they’ll care if the boxing arena is burned down, along with their home, their family’s home, and the rest of the land is swept up in a fire tornado. I never had a gun. It was a pack of skittles and an Arizona iced tea.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

I don’t think they’ll care if the boxing arena is burned down, along with their home, their family’s home, and the rest of the land is swept up in a fire tornado. I never had a gun. It was a pack of skittles and an Arizona iced tea.

The dye in Skittles is dangerous and banned in California.

 

[John Badman]

The dye in Skittles is dangerous and banned in California.

It’s okay because California burned down too.

 

[Lord Xenu]

It's quite obvious that for those that are liberal only the old left cares about free speech anymore and anytime else it's just to be trotting out in a contextual manner.

It's become obvious to me over the last few years, that the new right feels the exact same way about speech, and firearm rights. Perhaps it has something to do with younger generations being immersed in anti-freedom rhetoric, rather than, their political inclinations.

They never learned that "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance".

I am not from a country that has free speech

Everyone is born with free speech. The state can only opt to either protect it or suppress it.

they aired blatant disinformation

Who decides what is disinformation? The Hunter Biden laptop was "disinformation". The covid vaxx being ineffective at stopping the spread of the virus was widely touted as "disinformation", until it wasn't. This is why "disinformation" is and should be protected under 1A.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

Who decides what is disinformation? The Hunter Biden laptop was "disinformation". The covid vaxx being ineffective at stopping the spread of the virus was widely touted as "disinformation", until it wasn't. This is why "disinformation" is and should be protected under 1A.

Corporations don't get 1A. Only civilians get it. If he wants to claim the shooter was MAGA he needs to show evidence to support it.

If Jimmy Kimmel would have said it on his Bluesky then I'd agree it's his 1A right.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

It’s okay because California burned down too.

Finally some agreement!

 

[Lord Xenu]

Corporations don't get 1A. Only civilians get it. If he wants to claim the shooter was MAGA he needs to show weekevidence to support it.

tbh, I had no idea what Kimmel said, as I was on a hunting trip this week and didnt get home until late last night. So maybe I shouldn't have commented before I was better informed.

I'm no lawyer, but corporations are bodies made up of people, and as such should be protected from government oppression as well.

I suppose this is tangential to the conversation, but perhaps the concept of corporations as a discrete legal entity is the real issue. Particularly, when the winners and losers are chosen by the state itself? Especially true since post 90's media is a de facto monopoly, and the state (FCC) decides who even gets a voice at all via regulation and corporate bailouts. Maybe the idea that a corporate body should exist outside of the individuals who form the entity should be abolished, and if they fuck up, the repercussions of it should be born by the individual people who made those decisions?

These monopolies should not have been allowed to form, and wouldn't have, if not for government intervention. I'm sympathetic to the argument that they are now too powerful, and can only be broken through government intervention, but I also do not trust the government to do so in a way that reflects the interests of the public.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

I'm no lawyer, but corporations are bodies made up of people, and as such should be protected from government oppression as well.

There are two issues:
1. Pretty much all of those corporations are partially owned by non-Americans or have non-American employees who do not qualify for 1A protection. If the argument that Kimmel made was written by a Chinese official to be parroted for propaganda, then it should not be protected.
2. Corporations are too powerful to deserve any protection for individuals. If you give the average citizen a 10K fine then it will ruin him financially for a long time. Corporations can have a 10K fine every hour and lose nothing.

 

[Lord Xenu]

all of those corporations are partially owned by non-Americans or have non-American employees [...] If the argument that Kimmel made was written by a Chinese official to be parroted for propaganda, then it should not be protected.

I agree, and if this is the case, they should be tried individually, rather than having the protection of an internationally controlled corporation, operating within the US. This is why I said:

the concept of corporations as a discrete legal entity is the real issue [...] if they fuck up, the repercussions of it should be born by the individual people who made those decisions?

But my general argument is that the rot is deep, and free speech isn't even the issue that people should be focused on here. The first amendment is working as intended. There is a larger problem enabled & aggravated by the legal system, lobbying, and globalization. Chinese nationals should not be able to purchase 51% of a monopoly and be protected by the concept of corporation, a monopoly which shouldn't have existed in the first place.
When you say:

Corporations are too powerful to deserve any protection for individuals.

While I agree with this statement, I have to assume that you are arguing that 1A should not apply to corporations, but the fact remains that legal precedent seems to disagree. My position is that anything which degrades an individuals free speech is bad and that corporations should not be considered a legal entity at all.

People should be allowed to pool their resources, but that entity should not be considered separate from the individuals themselves under the law. You can't put a corporation in jail, but you can arrest the individuals involved in the decision making. If fines should be levied, they should be levied individually. The corporation should not be allowed to absorb the losses while the individuals forming it maintain their own personal assets.

I just read this article regarding corporations and the 1A. I don't know enough to confirm its accuracy but as a layman it sounds about right to me. These are some bullet points I found relevant:

- While the First Amendment was intended to protect individual freedom of religion, speech and assembly, as well as a free press, corporations have begun to displace individuals as its direct beneficiaries. This “shift from individual to business First Amendment cases is recent but accelerating.”

- Business involvement in First Amendment cases more than doubled during the tenure of Lewis Powell Jr. on the Supreme Court. Before, no more than 25% of such cases involved corporations; toward the end, more than 40% did. (In 1971, prior to being named to the Court, he authored what is now known as the “Powell Memorandum” urging corporations to become more involved in politics and the law.)

- The First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978), which challenged a Massachusetts law prohibiting corporate donations on ballot initiatives unless its interests were directly involved, was the first that “affirmed in the strongest terms a corporate ‘right’ to free expression.” This was “founded in the simple logic that corporations were (legally) people, and people have rights under the First Amendment.”