• pixxelkick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 months ago

    Lol, are you actually getting downvoted for all this?

    Everything this person wrote is correct. Free Speech protects you from the government, not other individuals.

    • papalonian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      They’re getting down voted for the paragraphs at the end angrily accusing someone who misunderstood something of supporting the Republican party

      • kerntucky@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        I downvoted when I saw them say “I’m in favor of dismantling the department of education”.

    • TheLeadenSea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Free speech isn’t explicitly a legal definition, let’s not talk past each other by using different definitions for the same word.

      • shalafi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        The notion is explicitly a legal definition in America.

        Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

        It’s right there. The government cannot fuck with you for talking shit, but anyone else can.

          • burntbacon@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            Which, seeing as cybertrucks aren’t allowed to be sold in europe, means we are effectively talking about america here, ain’t we? Oh, AND the comment that kicked all this off (by aramova) was definitely talking about american law, so we know that at least four comments above yours the topic’s relevance had already been narrowed. We can probably make the conclusion that the very top comment was referring to american law too, since they are presumably intelligent enough to know that the article was talking about a rapper from america, AND very few other places have citizens that use the phrase freedom of speech because their laws are different (and americans get all ‘religious-frenzied’ about their bill of rights).

            It’s less “american defaultism” than “we’re talking about america right now, dipstick.”