• Allemaniac@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    4 days ago

    “activist” even trying to discredit foreign federal bureaus by framing them as politically motivated lmao what a bunch of fucking crooks in the US admin.

  • pivot_root@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    101
    ·
    6 days ago

    Democratic governments should allow all voices to be heard, not silence speech they dislike.

    That’s real fucking rich coming from the government that:

    • Removed all references to “trans-” regardless of context.
    • Retaliates against left-leaning press.
    • Calls information they dislike “fake news”.
    • Sends immigrants to concentration camps.
    • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      6 days ago

      That because they don’t want free apeech. They want the speech only if its their speech.

    • HasturInYellow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 days ago

      I’m not even joking, I thought that whoever wrote this tweet was supporting the French investigation when I first read that.

    • NotKyloRen@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 days ago

      No no, you don’t understand. That doesn’t apply to us plebs (US citizens). It only applies to other countries so that the government can checks notes “strongly condemn” them.

    • Bloomcole@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 days ago

      EU is not much better.
      You have to be real careful with controversial subjects such as not liking genocide.
      And plenty countries have forbidden communism.
      Not to mention not honoring elections in Romania and anulling them, and not letting the winning party participate again.
      Even if it is a horrible right-wing party that won, that is still a mask off moment.

  • febra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    Of course the US will fight tooth and nail to keep its propaganda machines at work all around the globe.

  • Frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    Them: Democratic governments should allow all voices to be heard

    Us: Free Palestine

    Them: Terrorist!

  • betanumerus@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    By condemning this, the “US” is shooting itself in the foot.

    Ever since Twitter owner used Twitter to say Canada “wasn’t a real country”, no Canadian should be using Twitter. That wasn’t just bias, it was an “in your face and screw you” kind of bias.

  • Tiger666@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    4 days ago

    But Twitter censors all kinds of posts? There is no free speech on Twitter. Just try posting the word cisgendered and see what happens.

    • MiddleAgesModem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      5 days ago

      His free speech was never infringed. He can say what he wants and not be prosecuted for it. Whether or not he has a job isn’t covered by the First Amendment.

      • ikidd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        5 days ago

        Despite being an “entertainment” show, satirical media is still media, and covered by the First. These shows still rely on that protection against lawsuits, and have been exhonerated with the same defence, Cobert in particular. If you could prove government interference in this case, I’d say there was a pretty good basis for a court case based on freedom of the press, which is the corollary of free speech.

        • MiddleAgesModem@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          5 days ago

          “Free speech” doesn’t entitle you to dictate policy over privately held companies. We spent four years trying to convince Trumpers of this. Be smarter.

        • bigmamoth@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          5 days ago

          Like axing a show that didn’t make money ?

          That a poor comparison since on x the moderations is about random citizen and not paid employee doing a work for a company that a the end of the day is free to choose how to spent her money

            • bigmamoth@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              4 days ago

              how much ? cause the cost is high too. anyway

              However, the “pros” ultimately won out because, according to sources close to the network, “The Late Show” was losing money and there was no apparent path to turning around its financial position. source

            • smeenz@lemmy.nz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              4 days ago

              For the same freedom of speech reasons that we’re applying to Colbert. That jerkwad is just as entitled to lie as they are to tell the truth, and it’s up to everyone else to call them out on it.

              • smeenz@lemmy.nz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 days ago

                Can someone explain why a post in favour of free speech is being downvoted on lemmy ?

          • db2@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            5 days ago

            Like axing a show that didn’t make money ?

            Even if that were true, which it isn’t, what business does the president have even mentioning it much less making a demand?

            • bigmamoth@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 days ago

              However, the “pros” ultimately won out because, according to sources close to the network, “The Late Show” was losing money and there was no apparent path to turning around its financial position. source

        • Tja@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          It’s a visceral reaction, my guess. It’s exactly the same argument that right wingers used when oreilly, carlson, etc got canceled.

          Not paying someone millions for saying stuff on TV is not infringing on free speech, now apparently it’s leftists turn to not understand it.

  • mannycalavera@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    6 days ago

    You have to believe that the French government have evaluated in the same week the risk of recognising Palestine and condemning a US company against how vindictive the US government are right now. Hopefully they stick to their guns on both.

  • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    5 days ago

    The US Administration, more importantly a branch of the department of state, condemns French inquiry.

    A lot of the USA are cheering the French on.

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    4 days ago

    It is not censorship. This is not a government telling you what to publish or not. This is just finding out how a company is abusing its product to influence politics.

  • Alphane Moon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 days ago

    From my experience living in the US, the country is not a good reference point for any discussions around the nature of free speech.

    Free speech polemics in the US largely have a demonstrative role with individuals parroting random copytext that they’ve heard before in an attempt to position themselves as being special and independent.

    In a way, the whole thing is very entertaining.

    • cygnus@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      6 days ago

      Every state or social group has its shibboleths - the American one is just to performatively pretend they don’t have any.

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 days ago

      There is that.

      American democrats, though, irritated me more until I’ve started noticing Republicans. They have that “parties switched in 1960s” myth (only parties’ ideas on race switched, while the main ideology of the democratic party is not too different from “progressives” of 1890s, those guys who advocated for prophylactic lynchings ; and it’s the same about Republicans, whose “anti-racist” ideas were just as Christian fundamentalism based as their today’s projects), and also the “popular party” myth (while even in appearances being something to the top of which only people born with a silver spoon in mouth can get).

      At the same time the “free speech” stuff over there seems to mostly be about “they in their totalitarian countries (or pockets of society dominated by the other party) are lied by their propaganda media, and we here are free and are told the truth”.

      Not sure it’s entertaining, it looks depressing. But I haven’t lived in the US.