Simple. The Republicans remember when they were cancelled for not wanting to take a vaccination that was just invented months earlier; when they were deplatformed from Twitter constantly; when Reddit rejoiced at the death of one of their heroes; when "right wing violence is more common" became a meme as Minneapolis was literally burning. They watched a kid who they believed had a legitimate self-defense case get thrown the book in Wisconsin by a prosecutor called out by even the judge for brazen unfairness; with unprecedented levels of online hate rather than openness to discussion. They watched CNN accuse right wingers of exaggerating "mostly peaceful" protests with a car literally burning in the background. They stopped caring about your feelings, because you didn't care about theirs.
> They stopped caring about your feelings, because you didn't care about theirs.
Free speech is not about feelings. It's a principle, one enshrined in the US Constitution. If you don't believe in free speech, just say it. Say you don't want free speech, free assembly, free religion, and the free press. Don't cry about hurt feelings, though. That's what children do.
1A makes freedom of speech a legal principle, but it also exists as a philosophical principle and a moral value.
But fair play is also a moral value held by many.
For years, in my experience, it was unilaterally the "blue tribe" in the US who would point at XKCD 1357, and argue that the constitutional protection of freedom of speech doesn't extend to being able to keep your job, since the job doesn't come from the government in the first place (and because of "at-will" employment laws, and because of your employer's freedom of association). But if you believe this, then you have to accept that it can also be used against you.
I personally think it matters quite a bit exactly what was said, along with how strongly it was identifiably tied to the company, and what the PR effect would be. Companies shouldn't, absent other extenuating factors, have to keep around someone whose mere presence will hurt the business. But it's also unfair if companies are given an inaccurate impression of what customers on balance actually think about the matter.
> If you don't believe in free speech, just say it. Say you don't want free speech, free assembly, free religion, and the free press. Don't cry about hurt feelings, though. That's what children do.
It comes across that you have decided what GP's values really are, and are trying to extract a confession through bullying. This is not a productive mode of discourse.
They stood for free speech; but judging by the downvotes here, the left didn't care about their free speech. If it did, my post above wouldn't be at -4, while the inflammatory answer above is still in the black.
The left instead rationalized it under "free speech is not freedom from consequences", called them Nazis, fascists, bigots, homophobes, misogynists, you'd need a thesaurus. Every slur in the thesaurus, they used. When your opponent plays dirty, actively seeks to get you fired from your job, and your figureheads get killed (Kirk) or nearly killed (Trump), why uphold the rules?
EDIT: > Admit that your position is an unprincipled one and based on feelings rather than thought.
Admit that the right has realized that neither side gives a damn about principles; but the left has no right to claim to be principled after 2020.
You seem to be done editing this finally, so I'll quote (in case you edit it again) and respond:
> When your opponent plays dirty, when your figureheads get killed or nearly killed, why uphold the rules?
The Constitution wasn't shredded after Lincoln's assassination, Kennedy's, the attempt on Reagan. Why shred it now? You either believe in the principles, or you do not. If you don't, just admit it instead of complaining about hurt feelings or people playing dirty. Be an adult.
Damn, you managed to edit it while I was typing that, but the irony in this is rich:
> actively seeks to get you fired from your job
The Vice President of the United States is calling for people to be fired for speech. Again, you either believe in the freedom of speech or you don't. It's very clear that you do not. So again, be an adult. Admit that your position is an unprincipled one and based on feelings rather than thought.
EDIT: Removed "or Roosevelt" from attempted assassinations, he was the former president, not the sitting president, at the time.
> If it did, my post above wouldn't be at -4, while the inflammatory answer above is still in the black.
Ah ok, so only your right to free speech is important and no one is allowed to react negatively to it and have their own free speech. Thanks for making that clear.
I don't know though, maybe going from downvotes to making assumptions about something like 50m people is a bit of a stretch? And for what it's worth, I upvoted it, and I would certainly fall under "the left"
Correct. He didn't use a legal framework, and did it anyway. They even convinced Twitter to ban retweeting an unfavorable New York Post article that turned out true!
Twitter moderated the New York Post story based on their "hacked materials doxxing" policy, then executives immediately realized that the particular circumstances of this story weren't foreseen when the policy was written and within 24 hours changed the policy to allow posting the story.
And here we are 5 years later and people still bring it up.
> Not a single one of these articles supports the claim that the Biden administration used the law to make speech illegal in the same manner that trump used the fcc to make speech illegal.
TFA doesn't establish that Trump did any such thing, nor even that the FCC did any such thing.
