[pornel]

The US is not that exceptional nor principled. The concept of "freedom of speech" is absolute when Republicans want to say Republican things, but it's a "national security issue" when Muslims make too much noise. When sexual minorities want to speak, the priority is to "protect family values" instead. Corporations have "freedom of speech", but TikTok boosting black-green-red flags isn't protected speech, but an agent of the enemy corrupting the youth.

European countries have their own dogmas and hypocrisy, only draw the line at different topics (especially where everyone had their grandparents traumatized in a war started by the Grok's favorite character).

[smotched]

Could you give examples of when a U.S. citizens speech rights were legally taken away? Lets go with one of your examples of "When sexual minorities want to speak". Please elaborate.

None of the examples you gave are actually examples of speech being restricted. Its people (sometimes politicians) freely voicing their opinions on others speech, that is not restriction.

[saghm]

Literally in the last week, the Supreme Court ruled that books featuring gay couples need to be opt-out in schools. They've quite literally taken the stance that someone literally just seeing the existence of a gay couple in a children's picture book is a violation of their freedom.

[anamax]

> They've quite literally taken the stance that someone literally just seeing the existence of a gay couple in a children's picture book is a violation of their freedom.

No.

They've taken the stance that parents get to decide what books their kids see.

Other parents are free to make a different decision.

Do you really think that there's a "right" to force others to read books that you choose?

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

> They've taken the stance that parents get to decide what books their kids see.

So why draw the line at books depicting gay couples, rather than literally all books? Because this has nothing to do with the ban, except for being a “family-friendly” bullshit justification.

[smotched]

They didn't draw the line there, that's case that was brought forth. That's how the courts work.

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

> that's case that was brought forth

That's not how the Supreme Court works. They are selective about the cases they hear. Especially looking at a 6-3 ruling with this court it's clear to see this was an ideological selection.

[saghm]

Other parents making a different decision doesn't matter if the schools find it virtually impossible to have these books because of the logistical requirements of allowing kids to leave the classroom every time certain books are read.

> Do you really think that there's a "right" to force others to read books that you choose?

Do I really think that public schools have a right to assign reading of certain books for classes? Is this even a real question? How do you think English classes work?