• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -14 hours ago

    The government cannot excuse its indirect censorship of political speech simply by declaring the disfavored speech is “false.”

    For when all the liberals who whine about how conservatives are “allowed to lie!”. In particular the ones taking the side of the Brazilian government against musk.

    Freedom cuts both ways. It needs to. You have to put up with speech you hate in order to have your own freedom to say what you want.

    • BrikoXOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      94 hours ago

      In particular the ones taking the side of the Brazilian government against musk.

      Brazil doesn’t have USA’s First Amendment. So no matter which stance people have on what it should be, it was legally valid.

      And the whole fight was a political farce as Musk personally is known to comply with government censorship. Again, you can argue that the law is wrong and should be changed, but it’s legally valid.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -42 hours ago

        Brazil doesn’t have USA’s First Amendment. So no matter which stance people have on what it should be, it was legally valid.

        I’m arguing “should” not “can”. It’s just another case of when libs will gladly dispose of their values when it suits their short-term goals.

    • @undergroundoverground
      link
      64 hours ago

      Except you can’t threaten a president or lie about a corporation without being sued.

      However, the right to incite racial violence is very much protected

      Funny that huh?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -22 hours ago

        Except you can’t threaten a president

        Or anybody else if it’s a “true threat”

        or lie about a corporation without being sued.

        Or anybody else. And this is a civil tort not a criminal offense.

        • @undergroundoverground
          link
          1
          edit-2
          26 minutes ago

          Yeah, so, like I said, not so free after all, depsite the claims to the contrary.

          Well, unless its the right to incite racial hatred and violence. Then you’re free as a bird.

          I’m sure its just a coincidence and doesn’t cross reference with anything else from Americas history.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -12 hours ago

          However, the right to incite racial violence is very much protected

          Yeah - it protected a lot of civil rights activists in the '60s.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -12 hours ago

        Lets just ignore all the laws against murder. But seriously if you’re at the point where you’re willing to kill people over what they say then you’re a danger to us all.