All free speech means is that the government cannot illegally imprison you for what you say but it does not extent to private companies enforcing their terms and conditions even on you who feel the need to state how you want to shoot and kill all liberals.
They get pissy because they don't understand what free speech actually means.
They think it is applies to entities other than the government. The whole "Twitter is suppressing free speech!" comes to mind. No... it actually wasn't, because it's not a government entity, and thus, does not apply. They agreed to follow the ToS, and then got butthurt when they got banned for violating said ToS.
They also think that their right to free speech protects them from backlash, because they feel entitled. It does not, in fact, provide magical armor with a +100 resist to criticism, regardless of what they think.
"I am excercising my right to free speech!"
"Good for you; and I am also exercising my right to free speech, by calling you an asshole."
I guess being told all their lives that freedom of speech means that they are entitled to force their words and beliefs on people means that they get very upset when finally being told off for being spoiled children.
Opinion
2Opinion
Private media companies have political agendas and collude with government to suppress information that conflicts with the "official" narrative. They are engaging in propaganda.
Those companies push certain narratives and censor others. They try to manufacture consensus. It's political. It's not about protecting people from hate speech. They regularly use the vague phrase "terms and conditions" to arbitrarily censor factual information and legitimate questions.
Those corporations should be treated like public utility companies or broadcasters instead of social media, and held responsible for infringing upon free speech.
Your example of someone stating how they want to shoot and kill all liberals isn't even a thing. It's like using the disingenuous claim that you can't shout fire in a crowded theater. That argument was used to justify government brutality against anti-war and anti-draft protestors, and it was later overturned. It was a blatant infringement on first amendment prohibitions.
Of course you aren't allowed to promote or incite violence. But merely challenging propaganda isn't the same thing, even though the propagandists try to make reading and discussing ideas sound like a threat to civilization. They want to make Orwell's 1984 a reality.
Probably because, in the United States, people are ignorant that the Constitution is a restraint upon government, primarily the federal government, not upon individuals.
It means private companies stand above the law if government can't punish you for free speech but companies can exclude you for your opinion
You can also add your opinion below!
Most Helpful Opinions