US condemns French inquiry into Elon Musk's social media platform X/Twitter.
Technology
139
Beiträge
72
Kommentatoren
1.5k
Aufrufe
-
There are many ways to suppress speech.
"Free speech" doesn't entitle you to dictate policy over privately held companies. We spent four years trying to convince Trumpers of this. Be smarter.
-
There is that.
American democrats, though, irritated me more until I've started noticing Republicans. They have that "parties switched in 1960s" myth (only parties' ideas on race switched, while the main ideology of the democratic party is not too different from "progressives" of 1890s, those guys who advocated for prophylactic lynchings ; and it's the same about Republicans, whose "anti-racist" ideas were just as Christian fundamentalism based as their today's projects), and also the "popular party" myth (while even in appearances being something to the top of which only people born with a silver spoon in mouth can get).
At the same time the "free speech" stuff over there seems to mostly be about "they in their totalitarian countries (or pockets of society dominated by the other party) are lied by their propaganda media, and we here are free and are told the truth".
Not sure it's entertaining, it looks depressing. But I haven't lived in the US.
American democrats, though, irritated me more until I’ve started noticing Republicans.
All I need to read to know how fucking stupid your opinion is.
-
Every state or social group has its shibboleths - the American one is just to performatively pretend they don't have any.
Name it.
-
His free speech was never infringed. He can say what he wants and not be prosecuted for it. Whether or not he has a job isn't covered by the First Amendment.
Despite being an "entertainment" show, satirical media is still media, and covered by the First. These shows still rely on that protection against lawsuits, and have been exhonerated with the same defence, Cobert in particular. If you could prove government interference in this case, I'd say there was a pretty good basis for a court case based on freedom of the press, which is the corollary of free speech.
-
Name it.
Name what?
-
Unfortunately if that's the only payment method someone accepts other than cash
-
"Free speech" doesn't entitle you to dictate policy over privately held companies. We spent four years trying to convince Trumpers of this. Be smarter.
What do you mean, did the Biden admin target any particular shows or networks? Are you also aware the current admin is holding off Paramount's merger to exert influence over their programming? IDK how free that feels. May not be directly breaking laws, but it's absolutely a subversion of free speech.
-
Be that as it may, Trump is trying to dismantle it.
Trump dismantles anything he has no control over, pure dictator behaviour
-
Despite being an "entertainment" show, satirical media is still media, and covered by the First. These shows still rely on that protection against lawsuits, and have been exhonerated with the same defence, Cobert in particular. If you could prove government interference in this case, I'd say there was a pretty good basis for a court case based on freedom of the press, which is the corollary of free speech.
But then, you see who sits in the supreme court, for fucking lifetime.
And of course the stupid pardon rule.
And immunity of president making him above the law even tho nobody shall be above the law.
And possibility to de-found stuff without a vote or a chance to do a referendum.
And gerrymandering.
And winner takes it all.
And no absolute majority requirement.
All this made this fuckup possible.
Everyone loses except only a very small minority wins.
Do something about it.
-
Like axing a show that didn't make money ?
That a poor comparison since on x the moderations is about random citizen and not paid employee doing a work for a company that a the end of the day is free to choose how to spent her money
It did make loads of money though? Why do you get to just push blatant lies?
-
Colbert didn’t go to prison
I'm sure Colbert's on the list somewhere.
Oh so the thing that HASN'T HAPPENED is your counterargument?
-
What do you mean, did the Biden admin target any particular shows or networks? Are you also aware the current admin is holding off Paramount's merger to exert influence over their programming? IDK how free that feels. May not be directly breaking laws, but it's absolutely a subversion of free speech.
No, it's not. Free speech protects what you say from the government, not your employer. Your employer ALSO has free speech, meaning they can decide what can and can't be said on their property.
This is like saying Sesame Street doesn't show hardcore porn and that's a violation of free speech.
-
Name what?
The shibboleth in question
-
A French Inquiry...
"Did you ehhhhhh.... do ze crime?"
"Non"
"Par Excellence! Time for some coffee and cigarettes!"
-
Them: Democratic governments should allow all voices to be heard
Us: Free Palestine
Them: Terrorist!
-
Trump dismantles anything he has no control over, pure dictator behaviour
He literally has control over it though.
-
He literally has control over it though.
I guess there was a miss-understanding.
What I meant was this:
He has either control over content that is published by an entity (like e.g. a network) or he dismantles it.
Or do you disagree to that too?
-
While being the biggest pusher of propaganda in US history.
And VOA was only "propaganda" when you consider objective information to be "propaganda", like dumbfuck Trumpers do.
Since 1976 the Charter and later the 1994 International Broadcasting Act legally forbid government officials from dictating content. Don't worry about facts, though.
Trump himself tried to make it a propaganda outlet, doing the exact opposite of what you credit him for. He put Michael Pack in charge who sidelined editors, froze visas for foreign reporters and scrapped long‑standing “fire‑wall” rules that protect editorial independence.
The word "propaganda" is tricky. It has connotations of being lies, but that isn't always or even usually the case. Objectively true information can literally be propaganda. The mission of the VoA is to spread American propaganda. That's why it's funded. That can be truths that foreign governments want to suppress, it can be spin, or it can be lies. VoA is generally pretty truthful, especially compared to the privately run domestic versions like cable news outlets.
Government officials don't need to dictate content. As you pointed out, content can be controlled by who is appointed to manage the content. They know the mission.
-
A French Inquiry...
"Did you ehhhhhh.... do ze crime?"
"Non"
"Par Excellence! Time for some coffee and cigarettes!"
-
No, it's not. Free speech protects what you say from the government, not your employer. Your employer ALSO has free speech, meaning they can decide what can and can't be said on their property.
This is like saying Sesame Street doesn't show hardcore porn and that's a violation of free speech.
Based on your response, I'm not sure you even read my questions.
