[twright]

This is a really good compilation that should make any "free-speech absolutist" reconsider their support for the current administration.

In my understanding, the commonplace interpretation of the first amendment is largely due to a series of landmark cases through the early to mid-20th century. A lot of expansions were provided to the amendment that have been taken for granted since then and we are now going to see challenged. We'll see how many hold in due time but I wouldn't put good odds on it.

[p1necone]

I'm not really convinced more than a vanishingly small percentage of people who self identify as "free speech absolutists" are using that term in good faith. Freedom of speech is just the easiest way to have plausible deniability when directly or indirectly defending otherwise indefensible positions.

Anecdotally I've noticed these sorts of people much less often, at least on here as of late. Methinks their deniability isn't so plausible any more.

[slibhb]

> Freedom of speech is just the easiest way to have plausible deniability when directly or indirectly defending otherwise indefensible positions.

The idea that it's somehow suspicious to be in favor of free speech has got to be one of the worst developments in American politics.

And, for whatever it's worth, every vocal "free speech person" I know doesn't like the current administation. Some people actually just have principles!

[lovich]

>Anecdotally I've noticed these sorts of people much less often, at least on here as of late. Methinks their deniability isn't so plausible any more.

They don't need to do any denials anymore because they have won. That was part of arguing in bad faith, they never actually believed the arguments. Nothing being discussed on a message board is going to change that

[soulofmischief]

I know it's not your intention, but don't allow these people to control your perception of free speech advocates such that you're making blanket statements about them that might in turn color someone else's perception. They're hiding behind real free speech advocates, and powerful people are counting on stochastic comments like this one to help confuse the public.

[cyanydeez]

Most of them seem more like "freedom to fraud" or "freedom to incite violence" and speech is just the medium they need to do it.

[echelon]

The current administration does not support free speech for everyone. It's actively punishing free speech.

You're right -- many people who claim to support free speech really mean they favor "free speech for me, not for thee." And typically these people want to be able to say controversial things without consequence. But how people respond to speech is orthogonal to whether or not we are allowed to exercise our rights to it.

The ACLU did "free speech absolutism" right back in the 90's and 00's. They defended everyone's speech, no matter the politics, no matter how socially right or wrong it was [1]. They'd step up to bat for Democrats, Republicans, Christians, Atheists, and Satanists. Your views didn't matter. Defending the rights we all share was the point. Because when someone else's rights are degraded and not defended, it means everyone's rights are up for attack.

Unfortunately the ACLU doesn't hold these same views today. They're batting for one team only.

[1] They defended Westboro Baptist Church and NAMBLA, FFS. I definitely hate both of these organizations, but free speech is free speech. By defending even the most reprehensible speech, it ensures that mine remains free regardless of how the political pendulum swings. That's how it should be, anyway.

[generalizations]

> Anecdotally I've noticed these sorts of people much less often, at least on here as of late. Methinks their deniability isn't so plausible any more.

Been a lot more hysterical on here as of late. Methinks there's less reason to discuss political things now.

[raxxorraxor]

I don't think it fits completely, but for the sake of it, I am a free speech absolutist. I live in Europe for context.

Your insinuations isn't really a good faith argument either but I gladly join that group of "these sorts of people" because they are obviously more sensible than the others.

[SpicyLemonZest]

I don't think anyone identifies as "free speech absolutists" in the first place, except for Elon Musk one famous time. Strong free speech advocates remain about as common as they've always been, as far as I can tell - I suspect you just don't notice so much during times when the strongest threats to free speech are people and groups you're already inclined to oppose.

[jmyeet]

The only free speech absolutist in America is Noam Chomsky. He's the only one.

Whenever conservatives talk about "free speech" just substitute "hate speech" because that's what they mean. Elon Musk has called himself a free speech absolutist while banning people from Twitter for hurting his feelings, for being journalists who are remotely critical of him, for making fun of him, for reporting ATC public data on the location of his private jet and for making jokes.

The media is absolutely complicit in not challenging the countless lies told by Republicans.

What didn't get a lot of attention is how Trump sued a bunch of media outlets (eg ABC/Disney) to defamation. These are cases he absolutely could not win on the merits. ABC presenter George Stephanopoulos made the on-air claim Trump was "liable for rape" after he lost the E. Jean Carroll case. Disney agreed to pay ~$16 million in what has all the apperances of a payoff.

[RachelF]

One thing not on the list (yet) is the freezing of protesters' bank accounts that happened in Canada.

Or the de-banking that happens to politicians in the UK.

Or the jailing of whistleblower lawyers that happens in Australia.

[russelg]

I wonder what any of those have to do with a USA constitutional matter?

[PieTime]

I agree, but I think these countries don’t actually have free speech. I don’t care if I disagree with these positions. I will protest to defend their right to say it, otherwise I will lose mine as well.

[getnormality]

I would prefer a higher signal to noise ratio. For example, Radio Free Asia is a project of the federal government. Defunding it is a political decision. Freedom of the press does not mean the government is obligated to fund media nonprofits it has funded in the past.

If those sounding alarms don't distinguish between political decisions they disagree with and violations of our rights, they will lose credibility ala Boy Who Cried Wolf, and struggle to mobilize people when it really matters.

[someothherguyy]

RFA is funded by USAGM a independent agency of the US federal government. Do you argue against the idea of an independent agency? Are you saying its dismantlement was legal?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Agency_for_Global_Media

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_Un...

[apical_dendrite]

When the government's reason for defunding a media organization is based on that organization's viewpoint, then it is absolutely an attack on freedom of the press. I'm not sure about Radio Free Asia, but Trump has specifically cited his objections to the viewpoints of Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty as the reason for destroying them.

[dragonwriter]

> This is a really good compilation that should make any "free-speech absolutist" reconsider their support for the current administration.

The adoption of the "free speech absolutist" brand by certain elements of the Right was never an honest statement of ideology, it was a smokescreen of Orwellian doublespeak for efforts to impose right-wing bias on platforms both by platform owners and by government regulatory efforts.

Those people aren't going to reconsider their support for this administration because it isn't actually committed to free speech, because it is doing what the "free speech absolutist" label they adopted was always cover for.

> In my understanding, the commonplace interpretation of the first amendment is largely due to a series of landmark cases through the early to mid-20th century.

The one thing that the "free speech absolutist" Right-wing crowd was always honest about was that their position had nothing to do with "commonplace interpretation of the first amendment". (

[calf]

Then the center-left Democrat progressives need to stop discussing the term "free speech absolutism" because it conceptually muddies the water. Leftists believe in free speech, freedom of inquiry, freedom of the press, even "burden of proof beyond doubt"--these are all liberal ideas. There's a mainstream pseudo-left that has decided to dispense with all nuance of these basic liberal values, and that is far worse in the long run, because that is happening inside the house, in service of Democrat elites. It's like internalized oppression: the fascists and reactionaries are so bad, that we've decided to forget our own principles.

[raxxorraxor]

Interesting you call it a "brand". People picked up the term because it was meant to be an insult and that is quite relevant to understand the current political situation and why Trump can sell himself as free speech defender while doing the opposite.

Bascially because his opposition is that much slower...

[raxxorraxor]

The problem isn't that the current US administration is seen as a good protector of freedom of speech. It is that its opposition dropped the ball on it so massively.

With support of the now decried platforms, the slogan "there is no freedom of speech without consequences" comes to mind. Helping corporations "clean house" against all the undesirables, people that "hate".

This again points at the Trump administration and how bad it would be. That isn't really a convincing message, it is that it opposition needs to rethink some arguments of the past.

[LPisGood]

This article is about the entire first amendment, which has to do with more than free speech.

[donatj]

> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

Read that, please.

I'd consider myself a free speech absolutist and I don't really agree. I feel like most of the list falls into "bad legal takes" category as almost nothing on the list has anything to do with the first amendment at all.

The freedom of the press category basically amounts to slander having never been protected speech. You can sue for slander.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/d...

The freedom of speech category in the article is largely a big nothing burger. Government employees have never had freedom in what they say while acting as government employees. That can say whatever they want on their own time given they're not releasing protected information. That one's been settled by supreme Court a number of times.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/547/410/

The government gets say over what data it releases. There's nothing in in the first amendment guaranteeing government releases of data. That's just bizarre to even think of as a first amendment issue at all. The first amendment protects the people from censorship, nothing in the amendment protects the government from censorship by the government.

I literally struggle to see how just about anything in the article relates to the actual protections the first amendment provides whatsoever.

The freedom of religion section seems like we're moving more in line with the constitution by removing special protections for religious institutions? Religious institutions having special protections seems like a pretty clear violation of the first amendment. I don't see why a church/mosque/temple should be any different as far as the government is involved than a Footlocker. By literal definition religion shouldn't get special treatment. Separation of church and state.

[ooterness]

> Meanwhile, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents have been detaining and trying to deport pro-Palestinian students who are legally in the United States. The administration is targeting students and academics who spoke out against Israel’s attacks on Gaza, or who were active in campus protests against U.S. support for the attacks. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters Thursday that at least 300 foreign students have seen their visas revoked under President Trump, a far higher number than was previously known.

How is "deportation without a trial" not a deliberate attack on people exercising their constitutional right to free speech?

[brightball]

I just wish there was always this much interest in free speech. The level of care in most circles tends to sway based on who is in office.

[protocolture]

Theres no such thing as a free speech absolutist.

Supposed free speech absolutists demand reversals of bans from platforms for people due to hate speech.

Not 1 is demanding the same for spammers or fraudsters.

[acidmath]

A libertarian will argue that fraud is an act that is not the same as free speech and hence is not covered by free speech. I don't agree with the libertarian viewpoints overall, however I will acknowledge they have a point about the distinction between those two things.