Freedom of Speech Is Dead
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
VA Court Revives Lawsuit by Teacher Fired over Trans Student's Pronouns
A court has revived a lawsuit filed by a high school teacher who was fired for refusing to use a transgender student's preferred pronouns.
The court’s action happened on Thursday, according to the Washington Post.
The newspaper continued:
In a social media post on Thursday evening, the Babylon Bee’s Seth Dillon shared his thoughts on the issue, writing, “Cases like these prove that they aren’t just ‘preferred’ pronouns. They’re mandatory.”
“You’ll be fired if you don’t use them. So let them fire you, then sue them and defend your freedom. You have every right to refuse to affirm radical gender ideology,” he stated:
Feds Are Cracking Down on Humor
The self-righteous, "saving the world" joy suck attitude gets even worse when leftists get into government. The federal bureaucracy can drain the sunshine out of anyone's psyche, and it begins to affect even non-leftists in government after a while. The malaise so afflicts them that they begin looking for ways to mandate their misery.
Athena wrote a story yesterday about the latest bout of federal morosity:
I've long admired lighthearted VMS messaging. Many times, whilst stuck in Los Angeles traffic, a clever message on a freeway sign may have been the one thing that saved me from a road rage incident. OK, that's a stretch, but better a bad joke on a sign than a finger-wagging.
Given my rather unflattering view of bureaucrats at any level, I was always surprised to find that there were some with a sense of humor. I wonder if they'll all be fired now.
Athena's post is filled with examples of these highway humor breaks. Looking at them, you would be hard-pressed to find fault with the messages or how they're conveyed, which means you wouldn't be fit for government work.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
Highways can be overful of distractions - signs, billboards and so forth. We already have people barely watching the road while they text, navigate their complicated dashboard screens and - actually watching movies or videos while driving.
Now we're supposed to believe - that with everything else vying for our attention - freeway signs THAT ARE HUMOROUS are distracting, but ones that are NOT humorous, are not.
I can't believe any such research was conducted to prove this - because it's easier to believe the Earth is flat.
So we should ignore ALL messages on the VMS boards to avoid being distracted. Got it. I think those speed limit signs are taking my eyes off traffic too so no more looking at them. It will make for interesting testimony in court - "The government told me not to be distracted by looking at signs so I didn't see the speed limit go from 65 MPH to 35 MPH."
Public statements by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott made it clear that both laws were aimed at correcting a perceived bias against conservative speech. As they see it, Facebook et al. are using their influence to promote a progressive agenda.
Whitaker nevertheless insisted that content moderation decisions do not communicate any particular message. When platforms enforce their terms of service, he said, they are engaging in "conduct, not speech."
Yet that conduct, like the constitutionally protected decisions of newspapers and parade sponsors, reflects value judgments about which sorts of speech are beyond the pale, which is precisely why DeSantis and Abbott object to it. If platforms are legally barred from discriminating based on "content" or "viewpoint," they cannot exercise those judgments.
Even DeSantis and Abbott might not like the results. If the Texas law takes effect, Clement warned, his clients would be forced either to decree that users must avoid certain subjects altogether or to treat all viewpoints the same, no matter how abhorrent they might be to users and advertisers.
If platforms allowed pro-Jewish speech, for instance, they would have to give anti-Semitism equal prominence. They would be required to take a neutral stance regarding suicide prevention vs. suicide promotion, speech condemning terrorism vs. speech glorifying it, and posts encouraging vs. discouraging dangerous conduct such as bulimia and the "Tide Pod Challenge."
That is probably not a situation that most users would welcome, which is why platforms established content rules to begin with. While people may reasonably object to the specifics of those rules or the way they are enforced, those complaints do not justify using state power to impose different policies.
Given the choices available to people who do not like a particular platform's rules, equating those rules with government censorship is "a category mistake," as Clement observed. Based on that mistake, politicians are perversely arguing that the First Amendment must be sacrificed in order to save it.
reason.com
Freedom of Speech means ALL Speech ..... let the content consumers curate their own feeds
Whitaker nevertheless insisted that content moderation decisions do not communicate any particular message. When platforms enforce their terms of service, he said, they are engaging in "conduct, not speech."
Yet that conduct, like the constitutionally protected decisions of newspapers and parade sponsors, reflects value judgments about which sorts of speech are beyond the pale, which is precisely why DeSantis and Abbott object to it. If platforms are legally barred from discriminating based on "content" or "viewpoint," they cannot exercise those judgments.
Even DeSantis and Abbott might not like the results. If the Texas law takes effect, Clement warned, his clients would be forced either to decree that users must avoid certain subjects altogether or to treat all viewpoints the same, no matter how abhorrent they might be to users and advertisers.
If platforms allowed pro-Jewish speech, for instance, they would have to give anti-Semitism equal prominence. They would be required to take a neutral stance regarding suicide prevention vs. suicide promotion, speech condemning terrorism vs. speech glorifying it, and posts encouraging vs. discouraging dangerous conduct such as bulimia and the "Tide Pod Challenge."
That is probably not a situation that most users would welcome, which is why platforms established content rules to begin with. While people may reasonably object to the specifics of those rules or the way they are enforced, those complaints do not justify using state power to impose different policies.
Given the choices available to people who do not like a particular platform's rules, equating those rules with government censorship is "a category mistake," as Clement observed. Based on that mistake, politicians are perversely arguing that the First Amendment must be sacrificed in order to save it.
Texas and Florida say the First Amendment must be sacrificed to save it
Supreme Court arguments about two social media laws highlight a dangerous conflation of state and private action.
reason.com
Freedom of Speech means ALL Speech ..... let the content consumers curate their own feeds
SCOTUS Set to Hear Free Speech Case on Biden Admin Colluding With Big Tech to Stifle 'Misinformation'
Are you ready? Something big is set to start on Monday.
As we wrote in Oct. 2023, the attorneys general of Missouri and Lousiana, along with five plaintiffs, asked the United States Supreme Court to stay the Biden administration from colluding with Big Tech companies in stifling free speech on social media sites by calling it "misinformation." They also argued that the case should be heard in front of the High Court.
My colleague Susie Moore gave us the good news and the bad news:
You've obviously have seen what our taxpayers dollars have been spent on. Surely they wouldn't have shorted someone from conducting such a study!!
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
Oh I have SEEN the stupid-ass things our government has paid for - usually, it's because someone urgently pleads with them to have it funded, and manages to convince them that in the larger picture, it's chump change to pay for. You and I see a million wasted on something stupid, but a Congressman sees, oh that's about 30 seconds' worth of government spending.
But - it is ASKED for - and granted.
That is the part that - surprises me. One is, government usually doesn't mind SPENDING a little here and there for stupid ass things. As much as we bellyache about waste on thes boondoggles - Golden Fleece awards - foreign aid or even the NASA program - they pale in comparison to a 5% reduction in our entitlements would yield - and a BIG difference compared to the INTEREST we are now paying.Surely they wouldn't have shorted someone from conducting such a study!!
I'm thinking that someone in government DECIDES to reduce paying for something - an event that rarely happens - because they get a complaint from their district. THEN they waste precious resources checking it out.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
There's been a streak of social media posts where progressives believe that rights are derived from the government and bristle at the thought that they come from GOD - a concept that they fundamentally deny but exploit when the need suits them.
You don't have to believe in God to grasp the idea - humans are BORN with the right to be free. Unless you believe that right and wrong are determined solely by humans and law and government, this should be a simple basic understanding - whether you believe in God or not.
That we have a SCOTUS judge who believes that circumstances may permit the abridgement of rights is shocking to me - because if they can believe and worse, rule on that - your rights can be abridged not just in emergencies -but on a whim.
We put these things in a Constitution SO THAT THEY CAN'T BE DISMISSED easily.
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
Lately the Constitution has been dismissed pretty often.
We have a right to a speedy trial
We cannot be imprisoned without a trial.
BULLSHT. The are people sitting in jail for 3 years with no trial nor do they know the specific charges brought against them.
To Nancy Pelosi the Constitution is to be torn up just as she did to Trumps SOTU speech.
Progressives WANT TO CONTROL THE NARRATIVE to control the masses
This is why Rush was so HATED ..... rising during the Clinton years, Rush exposed the Clinton Grift, the lies behind proposed Budgets, Programs [ remember Hillary Care ] what ever the Democrats were trying to put forth ... lies about Whitewater, Hillary's Commodity Trading
With Talk Radio the left could no longer control the flow of information reaching public