Hey, so I just started like two new jobs. I absolutely I love all of you, but I’m probably going to have to post a little less. The secret sauce was Facebook. I curated a Facebook algorithm with nothing but the worst most accurate dystopian stuff about the USA Training the newsfeed on a new Account with purpose.
-user freely expressing their communist views on an open Internet infrastructure developed and supported by the US government-: “Is this a suppression of my free speech?”
Just because it’s not prosecuted doesn’t mean it’s free.
In some countries you can be lgbt on social media all you want but state media is banned from even mentioning its existence.
When your social media becomes to popular they have means to make you comply with national branding or shut you down.
I am not saying this is how it is in the west but what i am saying is that the ability to post to on an obscure decentralized forum is not an effective counter argument against their point.
There is very little need for an oppressive regime to invest into prosecuting speech on this level.
Yes, that’s literally what free speech is.
Not happening at a federal level, but yes, the far-right is trying to legislate the erasure of lgbt people from society, but it’s not something that has happened in the way you imply.
The meme is a misrepresentation of reality. It could happen that we eventually have oppressive state censorship like China, but we aren’t yet at that stage and its a disservice to people to mislead them about the rights they still have.
Only free speech is free speech. Almost every country has explicit laws that are rarely worth prosecuting so the singular experience of not getting prosecuted is not an accurate measurement for a places laws.
The west is much more lenient then asia in regards to free speech. I am not contesting how varying too points on the same spectrum can be.
For an absolutist like me your argument appears like a invitation to meet in the middle. You would consider both china and my perspectives as being extremist and the current way of the west that is not being perfect as the preferred system.
I have to disagree with such argument on principle, i see great potential in a more radical status quo, accepting the current system as good or neutral devalues the anarchists goal.
You can find my reasoning to disagree in the quote below.
Note, you are not the unjust man, i don’t wish to offend. lawmakers are the ones taking a step back here.
Your definition of free speech is actually wrong at face value. If I post a comment on the government website in the US, most of the time they’re not allowed to take it down, because it’s covered by free speech. If I want to speak at public comments at a City council meeting in the US, most of the time they have to let me speak. If we’re only focusing on the US, it’s clear that free speech is more than your ability to speak without being prosecuted. Free speech also has to do with limitations on what the government can do before or after you speak.