politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Ever since political correctness became a thing in the 80's limits on "free speech" have been placed to protect certain groups, and while many words we used back then are considered slurs today, and understandably so, I feel we've lost the way a bit. People taking offence at everything is a bit out of control. However, JD Vance et al seem more interested in being allowed to spread misinformation unchecked in the name of free speech, and that is something that should be a massive red flag. Free speech is one thing, but there should be consequences when said free speech can incite or fuel negative steroetypes, violence or villification of certain groups.
If you have legal consequences for speech, you don't have free speech
True, because words have meaning. If I have millions of followers on social media, and I say "Americans have killed hundreds of thousands of Arabs, and all Arabs have a duty to kill Americans". That is free speech, but i'm inciting people to murder, and that has consequences. Take a look at twitter these days, pure misinformation and blatant racism. This is no longer free speech, this is weaponising words. I know it's an extremely fine line but have we lost all common sense in the basics of right and wrong?
You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I am saying if there is a law establishing legal consequences for speech then you do not have absolute freedom of speech.
I actually got that, and that's why I mentioned common sense. Absolute freedom of speech cannot exisit in a world within most legal frameworks because people cannot be trusted to not act on violent rhetoric. ( January 6's attack on the US capitol is a prime example of the consequences of that).
But people act violently without it, I don't think the rhetoric is a necessary precursor. Furthermore, practicality is not what defines freedom of speech.
Sure people act violently, it's in our nature, but when a "revered" figure calls for violence, it's more than likely many more people will act on it.
i am free to wave my hands, doing so results in you getting smacked, and that's assault, therefore I'm not free to wave my hands because we have laws against assault...
I cannot believe the government bans hand waving.
There is not a single country on this planet that has no legal consequences for free speech and it would be ridiculous to claim that should be the standard. For one, and I feel kind of pedantic for pointing this out, but that kind of policy would preclude any obviously consequential statements made in court proceedings, for example pleading "guilty", lying under oath, and confessing. Less pedantically, even in a version of the US where their so-far mythical conception of free speech was actually achieved, legal consequences are assigned to direct, material threats and attempts to cause panic. You'd be pretty hard pressed to claim these exceptions are unreasonable, and I'd go further to say that malicious attempts to incite hatred against a group should be included in unprotected forms of speech. It already is in many countries.
Maybe The Economist thinks these kinds of exceptions are ineffective but, personally, I enjoy living in a nation where people can't legally spew hatred at my face because the bible told them my life is wrong. I feel safer knowing that people throwing Nazi salutes during national holidays are prosecuted. I think it's quite interesting that the Economist feels the need to point the finger at Europe and call for "noisy disagreement" where "people should tolerate one another’s views" when the United States has pursued this exact policy and it has lead to little more than them being one of the leading contemporary examples of how an advanced democracy and economy falls into fascism and mass disenfranchisement.
That's called "freeze peach" because "free speech" has always been subject to lawful restrictions.