Free Speech

  • Thread starter A2K78
  • 1,178 comments
  • 81,073 views


What. The. ****.

Why?!

Whatever gripe you may have about "cancel culture"--and conservatives haven't shied away from griping about it, while actively endorsing it when it's in their interest--Congress is the absolute last place it should be addressed.


I bet he can't clearly and concisely describe exactly what "cancel culture" is though, so it seems hard to see how he's going to actually do anything about it. Trump has demonstrated that showboating on Twitter works wonders for building popularity though, so watch politicians jump on board that particular fiery dump truck.
 


Sb4V689.gif
 
It does make me laugh how the majority of these people screaming about "cancel culture" and "no free speech" are doing so on television or on Twitter profiles followed by thousands or millions of people without being silenced. It's almost as if they're talking out of their arses.
 
Last edited:
It does make me laugh how the majority of these people screaming about "cancel culture" and "no free speech" are doing so on television or on Twitter profiles followed by thousands or millions of people without being silenced. It's almost as if they're talking out of their arses.
I think some of those people then tend to say more and more outrageous things with the intention of being blocked/banned by the platform just so they can prove their point about censorship.

Sometimes I wish it were more.
 
Last edited:
"Cancel culture" is a manifestation of the free market, free expression, freedom of choice, freedom of association and property rights. These are things that Republicans purportedly value, but it's becoming apparent that they only value these things for themselves.
 


It's honestly getting ridiculous (well...I guess it always has been ridiculous) how people aren't realizing that these representatives are actively attacking the 1st amendment and what it stands for by attacking the "cancel culture" boogeyman.

Yeah, I'm probably being too generous. That's probably not going away anytime soon, even though I get evidence that I shouldn't be on an almost daily basis.
 
To those who screech cancel culture at even the merest suggestion of not doing something, is the implication that it is NEVER okay to stop doing something? It's NEVER okay to think "Hm, maybe we shouldn't do this anymore" ?

It's ALWAYS censorship?
 
Last edited:
To those who screech cancel culture at even the merest suggestion of not doing something, is the implication that it is NEVER okay to stop doing something? It's NEVER okay to think "Hm, maybe we shouldn't do this anymore" ?
Not if it's them being cancelled.

It's ALWAYS censorship?
It is if it's them.
 
Last edited:
"Cancel culture" is a manifestation of the free market, free expression, freedom of choice, freedom of association and property rights. These are things that Republicans purportedly value, but it's becoming apparent that they only value these things for themselves.
There is a huge difference between being told a show is bad, letting the viewer make a choice and completely removing it from any kind of viewing option.
Thank god I have 4 of the 7 seasons of The Dukes of Hazard on DVD. Can't find them anymore. ;)
 
Last edited:
There is a huge difference between being told a show is bad, letting the viewer make a choice and completely removing it from any kind of viewing option.
Thank god I have 4 of the 7 seasons of The Dukes of Hazard on DVD. Can't find them anymore. ;)
So a show whose original run ended 35 years ago is presumably no longer syndicated or offered on alternative media in your market.

Oh. ****ing. No.

So, per the presumption, either the legal owner of the property has ceased to make it available for viewing in your market (property rights) or those who would carry it, either through broadcast or for sale on alternative media, have ceased doing so (freedom of choice/association).
 
So a show whose original run ended 35 years ago is presumably no longer syndicated or offered on alternative media in your market.

Oh. ****ing. No.

So, per the presumption, either the legal owner of the property has ceased to make it available for viewing in your market (property rights) or those who would carry it, either through broadcast or for sale on alternative media, have ceased doing so (freedom of choice/association).
Perhaps try spelling the title with two "Z's" in the search engine.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07WRDTBSM/?tag=gtplanet-20
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000HPIG6S/?tag=gtplanet-20

It doesn't look cancelled to me.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps try spelling the title with two "Z's" in the search engine.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07WRDTBSM/?tag=gtplanet-20
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000HPIG6S/?tag=gtplanet-20

It doesn't look cancelled to me.
Yeah, while I didn't actually go looking, I made a point to focus on the presumption because I hadn't heard of any such cancellation, and the way Republicans are losing their absolute **** over these sorts of things, I was pretty sure I'd be aware of such a cancellation.

The remarks obviously still apply to intellectual property that actually has been withdrawn in the manner as presumed of The Dukes of Hazzard, deemed incorrectly to be suppression of protected speech through "cancel culture."

See below for actual suppression of protected speech, indeed by a government entity, demonstrating contempt for the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.



Parody, even when not explicitly indicated as such as it is in this instance, is protected by the First Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution holds that said protected speech is not subject to state law.

I'd wager the Republican Lt. Governor of Utah is aware of this and simply doesn't care.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, while I didn't actually go looking, I made a point to focus on the presumption because I hadn't heard of any such cancellation, and the way Republicans are losing their absolute **** over these sorts of things, I was pretty sure I'd be aware of such a cancellation.

The remarks obviously still apply to intellectual property that actually has been withdrawn in the manner as presumed of The Dukes of Hazzard, deemed incorrectly to be suppression of protected speech through "cancel culture."
Sorry, guess I should've made it clear that my remarks weren't aimed at you.

Those Utahn lawmakers should learn to beehive (think I already did that pun. Sorry again). They're using the law as an excuse to crack down on the parody site as your post highlights.
 
Last edited:
Texas Senators Want Sports Teams To Shut Up and Play the Anthem

The culture clash over the national anthem and kneeling has largely stayed away from actual lawmaking, until now.

Ten Texas state senators introduced a bill this month, Senate Bill (S.B.) 4, that would require pro sports teams to play the national anthem at the beginning of each preseason, regular season, and postseason game hosted in Texas. It bars governmental entities at the state and local levels from entering agreements with sports teams that require a financial commitment unless the agreement includes written verification the team will play the anthem before all games. If a team fails to comply, it would be in default of the agreement.

The bill didn't come out of the blue. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R) vowed to introduce a bill back in February when it was reported that the Dallas Mavericks hadn't been playing the anthem before their games. For 13 preseason and regular-season home games, team owner Mark Cuban decided to skip the national anthem, and it took a while for anybody to notice (perhaps because fans were only present for the last of those games). Following reports about Cuban's decision, the NBA announced that with fans coming back into arenas, it would once again enforce its longstanding rule requiring the anthem before games.

Presumably, if this bill became law and a major sports league actually allowed a team to stop playing the national anthem (which seems a bit unlikely if even the NBA is still requiring it), it would affect stadium subsidies, any kind of government-funded tourism sponsorship, and possibly even arrangements where local law enforcement provides security. However, the bill would likely not stand up to judicial scrutiny.

"As a private organization, the NBA may legally require its teams to play the national anthem before games. Those teams cannot claim such an action violates their free expression rights," Amy Kristin Sanders, an attorney and a professor at the University of Texas Austin School of Journalism, told Law&Crime. "But Patrick's proposal that the Texas Legislature pass a state law requiring the national anthem be played represents state action. As a part of its speech protections, the First Amendment also bars state actors from compelling others to speak—and requiring someone to play the national anthem is just that."

In late February, several Tennessee legislators attempted to infringe on the speech rights of athletes via a different route. Those legislators wrote a letter to the state's public university presidents and chancellors asking them to prohibit student-athletes from kneeling during the national anthem. But, as Reason's Robby Soave wrote, "if the university could force student-athletes to stand for the national anthem, then it could force any student to do so—and this would obviously be unconstitutional."

The 10 Texas senators who authored S.B. 4 (nine Republicans and one Democrat) make up nearly one-third of the chamber. Hopefully, their colleagues recognize the First Amendment supersedes scoring political points.
 
Twitter sues Texas AG Ken Paxton, alleging he's using his office to harass it for banning Trump

San Antonio Current
Twitter has sued embattled Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, alleging that he's using his office to retaliate against the social media giant for banning President Donald Trump in the wake of the U.S. Capitol insurrection.

Paxton, a Republican and fervent Trump supporter, announced an investigation into Twitter and other social media companies in January, claiming they were silencing conservative voices on their platforms. As part of the probe, he demanded Twitter cough up internal documents, including its policies on banning users.

Twitter's suit, filed in federal court in Northern California, seeks a temporary restraining order to stop Paxton from demanding internal documents. The social media company argues that its decision to remove users is protected by First Amendment rights to [free] speech.

“Paxton made clear that he will use the full weight of his office, including his expansive investigatory powers, to retaliate against Twitter for having made editorial decisions with which he disagrees,” it states in the suit.

I wonder whether Paxton will complain that his "first amendment" rights to shut down media platforms "with which he disagrees" are under threat by this lawsuit.
 
Last edited:


Focus on issues that matter, eh? But not the pandemic that's killed 500,000+ of your citizens, or the systemic racism and injustice that affects a significant proportion of the population. Cancel culture and immigrants are the most important things, obviously.

Politicians are :censored:ing cancer.


That's some pretty authoritarian BS right there.

Pride in country is established by having a country that people are proud to be a part of, not by legally mandating that they be proud. If you can't choose not to play the anthem then it ceases to mean anything when people do choose to play it.
 
The cons don't like it when Twitter exercises its protected right to take action against them on its private platform. Maybe it's not fair. It doesn't have to be. It's a private platform.

Why don't they boycott the platform? They get to exercise that right and they don't hesitate to do so.

Okay, so it's probably a little different when the target of such a boycott is so ubiquitous--despite the existence of alternatives--and has clawed its way into daily life. Maybe it's difficult.

It's probably not so difficult to boycott a streaming service to which you probably don't subscribe for pulling a movie you probably had no desire to watch prior to them pulling it. It's probably not so difficult to boycott a tire company whose product you probably don't buy four of every five years or so because they have an internal dress code. It's probably not so difficult to boycott a coffee chain that costs a whole lot more than Maxwell House because they invoked the wrong seasonal well-wishing on their paper cups that end up getting tossed after one use anyway.

But Twitter is huge. It's not the only option, but it's...like...really, really big. Then there's all the stupid and/or crazy people on...say...Parler.

Sure, there are stupid and/or crazy people on Twitter. Loads. I know. It's fun to highlight their stupid and/or crazy ramblings. I know.
But on Parler, the odds that someone's stupid and/or crazy matches your stupid and/or crazy aren't so favorable. Maybe it's...awkward. Maybe it's a bit too much like gazing into a stupid and/or crazy mirror.

Plus Parler doesn't invest in protection against external threats the way Twitter does. They know how powerful their conservative safe space bait is.

But given how big Twitter is--how much of a presence it is in your life--just think about how meaningful following through on the decision to boycott the platform would be. And maybe the folks who operate Twitter won't care. And maybe those whose stupid and/or crazy doesn't match your stupid and/or crazy won't care. But that conviction. You can be proud of the decision you made.

And Twitter gets to keep exercising its protected right to manage content exactly as it sees fit.
 
I wonder if social media companies could just “go dark” in protest?

Can you elaborate on this? I have a feeling you're making a reference to common carrier requirements or past social media behavior.
 


At this point I think the GOP is well aware of the "unintended" consequences. They either don't care, or are banking on those consequences so that the people/platforms they don't like lose their ability to speak out against them.

I wonder if social media companies could just “go dark” in protest?

I personally would love it if Facebook, Twitter, etc. would go dark/offline for a few days just to show what would happen if 230 was indeed repealed, but I'd be afraid that a lot of people would either miss the point, and/or certain groups/"news" outlets would try to paint it as a fear-mongering tactic (while once again demonstrating their own lack of self-awareness). In any case, I don't think there's a way for the social media companies themselves to make a point and not have it backfire in some capacity.
 
Can you elaborate on this? I have a feeling you're making a reference to common carrier requirements or past social media behavior.
No reference to anything specific, just "dark" as in offline. Govt. wants to tell them how they should run their platforms, they just flip their platforms off for a few days.

Could be interesting to see if they need the public/businesses to stay afloat or if people/businesses (or even politicians) rely on social media more heavily than expected to the point the reach social media provides is vital.
 
Last edited:
I personally would love it if Facebook, Twitter, etc. would go dark/offline for a few days just to show what would happen if 230 was indeed repealed, but I'd be afraid that a lot of people would either miss the point, and/or certain groups/"news" outlets would try to paint it as a fear-mongering tactic (while once again demonstrating their own lack of self-awareness). In any case, I don't think there's a way for the social media companies themselves to make a point and not have it backfire in some capacity.

Didn't they sort of do that when they were protesting SOPA?
 
Didn't they sort of do that when they were protesting SOPA?

From what I remember, yes, but I think that got better support since it was seen (and objectively was) as an attack against internet freedom as a whole. With the current atmosphere, I see the people who are supporting these attacks on the 1st Amendment gaining much greater support by painting the whole thing as an effort to stop social media companies from "censoring" Conservatives, even though it is the Conservative voter that would likely be the biggest victim. This is pretty much what's happening with the new voting laws in Georgia, where the laws are very anti-democratic, but it's still being painted as an effort to combat voter fraud.
 

Latest Posts

Back