• TheLeadenSea@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    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.worldEnglish
      3·
      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
          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.”