[nme01]

This shows that values such as “freedom of speech” are only key words used to enforce US policy in other countries. For such a long time it was advocated that free speech is an important thing and good in and on itself. Now it turns out the free speech is good only as long as it’s US who dominates the information market.

[zeroonetwothree]

“Now”? The US and state governments constantly try to violate free speech. Texas, Florida, and California all had major laws truck down for 1st amendment violations in the past year. And it’s been like this since the first Adams administration

[thinkingtoilet]

How is this an attack on free speech? What individual is getting punished for their speech by the government? There is hardly a lack of spaces online for you to say just about anything.

[Miner49er]

Free speech includes the right to receive/hear speech. TikTok contains a trove of speech that doesn't exist elsewhere. Banning it is unconstitutional, and I'm confident the courts will agree.

[NegativeLatency]

Google and Meta have limited what political content they'll show to you, feels like a pretty clear attack on something the establishment doesn't like but justifying it with the boogey man of communism: https://www.npr.org/2024/03/26/1240737627/meta-limit-politic...

[thinkingtoilet]

Your response has absolutely nothing to do with the first amendment. If a private company wants to limit discussion on their platform they can. Facebook is not a right. If it's limiting the speech you don't like, leave.

[BriggyDwiggs42]

I’ll happily agree it’s not a first amendment issue, but I think it’s a problem. A systemic analysis here reveals that, in effect, the discourse is clamped down on and censored in a way not to dissimilar in its consequences from actual government censorship. The vast majority of the population engages in discourse in spaces where some topics are made off limits, meaning they won’t be exposed to them. I do think we should be concerned about that when it has tangible negative effects.

[sillysaurusx]

The most overused argument. I wonder if you’d feel the same way if every bank decided to ban you. Or every grocery store.

[moshegramovsky]

If you go into a grocery store or a bank and harrass people or behave badly, you will get banned. Try getting a bank account if you have a felony for bank robbery.

There was a guy who received a lifetime ban from Safeway for driving through their garden displays and breaking windows in their stores.

The US does ban people from using banks. See also: list of specially designated nationals, etc.

[asadotzler]

The US has banned foreign ownership of TV and radio since 1934. Are you really this naive of your own country's operations?

[ipaddr]

Freedom of speech is right for an American citizen not a foreign country or entity.

Regardless free speech for Americans is already dead. Remember when they took away rights from groups you didn't care about? Now it's your turn.

[Buttons840]

Freedom of speech is a moral ideal that exists despite the intricacies of US law.

[ipaddr]

It is as much immoral as it is moral. It's a neutral idea like stopping on a red before a right turn. Some places it is deemed right and other places wrong. You might always stop even if laws forbid it or you might not stop.

[Buttons840]

Okay. My point is someone made an argument about "freedom of speech" on moral grounds and then you cite a legal gotcha "well, legally that doesn't apply to the whole world". You're right, but the legal gotcha doesn't matter when arguing over morals (or "immorals").

[dantheman]

I think it shows that politicians are short sighted and immoral - nothing new there. Freedom of speech is still incredibly valued and constantly fought for.