The most protected form of speech is money. Apparently. Which is really weird since money isn’t, you know, speech, at all. But what do I know, I’m broke as shit.
Honestly we use the same argument when the right gets shut down by other institutions, like when Twitter banned Trump for being, well, ya know. We can’t have it both ways.
What is different is that Trump was banned because he was being hateful and here we see the same right being used to block people asking maybe let’s not continue doing/aiding a genocide please. I can’t say we should regulate that deep but it does make me sad that we can’t just do the right thing here out of fear that it might lose some money or the kind of audience that doesn’t care about a genocide.
While I generally agree with that the thing I’m getting at is that we lose credibility when the argument we use is one that can be easily turned back onto us. “Freedom of speech only protects you from the government” is correct here. We also generally agree that hatespeech should be regulated by the government even within private settings, which makes sense.
I get why a stadium would not want to see that stuff and why they’re allowed to say what can be present on their property. What I don’t agree with is the fact that by denying the protestors in such a way they are trying to take a stance of neutrality in a situation where neutrality is just a technically ok way to say that Palestinians matter less than their football game or whatever this is.
I’m pissed at the fact that U.S. citizens need to protest like this to get any kind of traction while their government sells weapons to the aggressor in a very one-sided genocidal rampage. I’m pissed that the stadium is not only worried about money first, but that they believe that allowing support for Palestinians would hurt them more than it would help them.
TL;DR It’s insane that we would even need to consider making laws that would make moral decisions like this for us. I get hate-speech, that’s a fairly easy one to legislate, but to decide also what’s right and force people to support things starts to get weird and you know it would be misused in a flash. The world is not a good enough place for that kinda thing.
protests are useless and it’s pointless to try to be on a moral high ground against conservatives. conservatives don’t care about hypocrisy. they will point out your hypocrisy if it serves them in an argument and will ignore their own when it is turned back on them.
don’t waste your time trying to be an example of a good person. it will do nothing to change their mind. sweep the fucking leg instead. that was always the answer.
if you want to see change in this world, stop debating your enemy and start setting up booby traps for them.
Holy shit, this is universally up voted? Are the people here really this uninformed when it comes to free speech? Not one person has challenged you on this BS?
Free speech is something that protects you from the government. This is clearly some private event that has the right to allow or disallow whatever they want on their property. This is like if I was invited into your house, I called your wife a cunt, you asked me to leave, and then I said the ridiculously stupid “you’re violating my freedom of speech!”
Is the Lemmy hive mind even more dumb than reddits?
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC, UNC-Chapel Hill, North Carolina, Chapel Hill, or simply Carolina) is a public research university in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
The First Amendment to the Constitution protects speech no matter how offensive its content. Restrictions on speech by public colleges and universities amount to government censorship, in violation of the Constitution.
While you are free to say what you want, you don’t have the freedom from consequences of what you say, except from being critical of the government. I think that’s the point he was trying to make, but he wasn’t very articulate about it.
But there still are limited restriction, for example you can’t talk about (or even look at) any classified information you come across. And whistle blowing has become all but illegal.
Fair point, I thought it was a private university when I clicked through. Although I do believe they retain the right to limit disruptive speech at these types of events.
Yes, exactly. All those people complaining when they get banned off of a platform and then yelling “but mah freedumb of speech!” Also have no idea what freedom of speech means. It’s right there in the “terms of services” they agreed to when they signed up.
Freedom of speech also does not mean freedom from consequences. Charles Manson is the best example of this. He never murdered anyone by his own hand, but he convinced other people to do so with his own words. So he got a life sentence. And what he said was all done in private, not in public.
Freedom of speech… until you try to use it.
The most protected form of speech is money. Apparently. Which is really weird since money isn’t, you know, speech, at all. But what do I know, I’m broke as shit.
The more money you have the more innocent you are. Billionaires are basically the most innocent people in society, while the poor are most guilty.
The universities can’t hear you over AIPAC and other rich genocide apologists shouting into their bank accounts 😮💨
I SAID… *checks wallet* ah fuck apparently nothing.
Honestly we use the same argument when the right gets shut down by other institutions, like when Twitter banned Trump for being, well, ya know. We can’t have it both ways.
What is different is that Trump was banned because he was being hateful and here we see the same right being used to block people asking maybe let’s not continue doing/aiding a genocide please. I can’t say we should regulate that deep but it does make me sad that we can’t just do the right thing here out of fear that it might lose some money or the kind of audience that doesn’t care about a genocide.
yes we can have it both ways. goose and gander arguments are tools that sociopaths use to justify their shitty behavior.
While I generally agree with that the thing I’m getting at is that we lose credibility when the argument we use is one that can be easily turned back onto us. “Freedom of speech only protects you from the government” is correct here. We also generally agree that hatespeech should be regulated by the government even within private settings, which makes sense.
I get why a stadium would not want to see that stuff and why they’re allowed to say what can be present on their property. What I don’t agree with is the fact that by denying the protestors in such a way they are trying to take a stance of neutrality in a situation where neutrality is just a technically ok way to say that Palestinians matter less than their football game or whatever this is.
I’m pissed at the fact that U.S. citizens need to protest like this to get any kind of traction while their government sells weapons to the aggressor in a very one-sided genocidal rampage. I’m pissed that the stadium is not only worried about money first, but that they believe that allowing support for Palestinians would hurt them more than it would help them.
TL;DR It’s insane that we would even need to consider making laws that would make moral decisions like this for us. I get hate-speech, that’s a fairly easy one to legislate, but to decide also what’s right and force people to support things starts to get weird and you know it would be misused in a flash. The world is not a good enough place for that kinda thing.
protests are useless and it’s pointless to try to be on a moral high ground against conservatives. conservatives don’t care about hypocrisy. they will point out your hypocrisy if it serves them in an argument and will ignore their own when it is turned back on them.
don’t waste your time trying to be an example of a good person. it will do nothing to change their mind. sweep the fucking leg instead. that was always the answer.
if you want to see change in this world, stop debating your enemy and start setting up booby traps for them.
Holy shit, this is universally up voted? Are the people here really this uninformed when it comes to free speech? Not one person has challenged you on this BS?
Free speech is something that protects you from the government. This is clearly some private event that has the right to allow or disallow whatever they want on their property. This is like if I was invited into your house, I called your wife a cunt, you asked me to leave, and then I said the ridiculously stupid “you’re violating my freedom of speech!”
Is the Lemmy hive mind even more dumb than reddits?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_North_Carolina_at_Chapel_Hill
https://www.aclu.org/documents/speech-campus
First sentence on the Wiki and on the ACLU page. Go back to Reddit if you’re going to be ignorant and insult people.
While you are free to say what you want, you don’t have the freedom from consequences of what you say, except from being critical of the government. I think that’s the point he was trying to make, but he wasn’t very articulate about it.
But there still are limited restriction, for example you can’t talk about (or even look at) any classified information you come across. And whistle blowing has become all but illegal.
Fair point, I thought it was a private university when I clicked through. Although I do believe they retain the right to limit disruptive speech at these types of events.
deleted by creator
Yes, exactly. All those people complaining when they get banned off of a platform and then yelling “but mah freedumb of speech!” Also have no idea what freedom of speech means. It’s right there in the “terms of services” they agreed to when they signed up.
Freedom of speech also does not mean freedom from consequences. Charles Manson is the best example of this. He never murdered anyone by his own hand, but he convinced other people to do so with his own words. So he got a life sentence. And what he said was all done in private, not in public.