free speech just means no punishment from the state for something you've said, it doesn't mean there aren't any social consequences
even 20, 30, 40 years ago when things were less PC than they are now there's still s*** that would get you ostracized (and probably rightly so) if you said it
and btw social media corps are free to have their own set of guidelines that the users agree to abide by. it's not really a suppression of the free speech to have them exist
worse s*** to be worried bout
Just a reminder that privately owned companies don't want to be affliated with Far Right views just like how your employer would fire you if you were stupid enough to broadcast your questionable views on a public platform.
Yes, because the opposite is speech controlled by the government. Banning and arresting neo-Nazis and other racist agitators sounds great, until you realize that same power can be used against you when the pendulum inevitably swings the other way.
F*** the two idiots in the first post but nah I don't support free speech. I think bigotry of any kind should be a punishable offense whether it be spoken in person or written online. Maybe that makes in favor of censorship but I'm all for if it helps remove idiots from the world.
sorry if i am wrong but 1st amendment does not apply on private companies (which they were banned)
if where they go gets popular and big time advertisers come there they will 100% will banned them their also
Yes, because the opposite is speech controlled by the government. Banning and arresting neo-Nazis and other racist agitators sounds great, until you realize that same power can be used against you when the pendulum inevitably swings the other way.
Free speech doesn't mean free from repercussions.
I support it.
who makes the repercussions
free speech just means no punishment from the state for something you've said, it doesn't mean there aren't any social consequences
even 20, 30, 40 years ago when things were less PC than they are now there's still s*** that would get you ostracized (and probably rightly so) if you said it
and btw social media corps are free to have their own set of guidelines that the users agree to abide by. it's not really a suppression of the free speech to have them exist
and btw social media corps are free to have their own set of guidelines that the users agree to abide by. it's not really a suppression of the free speech to have them exist
it is if they do everything within their borderline trillion dollar power to monopolise
We wouldnt have hip hop without free speech. Shout out N.W.A. and 2 Live Crew many others I'm sure.
youtube is a company. they were gonna ban molyneux. molyneux himself is a cult leader anyway. doesn't mean he should be allowed a voice, but he is anway. youtube is a company and if they don't want certain ideals on their site that's on them. Youtube clearly is like one big talkshow host centre anyway. Lots of youtubers have been demonitzed and driven off youtube because they make edgy s***. Every youtuber who is making political videos that aren't hardcore left leaning (not even classical liberals will be spared) will be banned eventually.
imma really need yall to understand the legal definition of free speech so threads like this stop
He has the right to say whatever he wants, but YouTube has a right to prohibit doing this on their platform
He can make his own website and talk his s*** there