You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
There is no 'right' to speak freely. The 1A merely restricts the government's ability to impede your speech. That's it. That's all we have. All this "Facebook censored muh freedumbs" is nonsense that isn't going anywhere.
Like I said, the 1A does not create a right to free speech, it protects it, in this case, from the government. There is a right to speak freely (within some constraints) just like there is a right to life, liberty, the pursuit of your goals, and to own property. These are intrinsic and inalienable to human nature and dignity.
Socialist-media may not be breaking any law, but they are breaking their own ostensive terms in a highly skewed and partisan manner, and they are doing so surreptitiously, which indicates that they know this. They may or may not be breaking any laws ( unless public-square doctrine can be said to apply) but they are surely behaving unethically and in a deeply unpleasant, enervating, and insulting manner to those affected, and therefore they can be criticized for their actions.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] Anam ago
The first amendment recognizes and protects a preexisting intrinsic right. The right to speak freely is not something granted by the government.
[–] RevDrStrangelove ago
There is no 'right' to speak freely. The 1A merely restricts the government's ability to impede your speech. That's it. That's all we have. All this "Facebook censored muh freedumbs" is nonsense that isn't going anywhere.
[–] Anam ago
Like I said, the 1A does not create a right to free speech, it protects it, in this case, from the government. There is a right to speak freely (within some constraints) just like there is a right to life, liberty, the pursuit of your goals, and to own property. These are intrinsic and inalienable to human nature and dignity.
Socialist-media may not be breaking any law, but they are breaking their own ostensive terms in a highly skewed and partisan manner, and they are doing so surreptitiously, which indicates that they know this. They may or may not be breaking any laws ( unless public-square doctrine can be said to apply) but they are surely behaving unethically and in a deeply unpleasant, enervating, and insulting manner to those affected, and therefore they can be criticized for their actions.