How can Westerners claim they live in a "free country" when they're not allowed to criticize jews or question the holocaust?

>>936765545 (OP)
>2025-03-8 Khameinei Twitter Tweet Free Speech Westerners Nazi Germany Jews Social Media Platforms Censorship.jpg
nicely categorized so the bots use the proper images for the correct threads

Aside from OP being a bot, no where in the west apart from America says that.
America is the only country with freedom of speech and no social media platform is owned by the American government so as such, freedom of speech doesn't exist on them.

Freedom of speech is a completely unique abstract that exists in America and even then, it's still limited and is completely arbitrarily upheld.

>>936765545 (OP)
Nobody is being arrested for claiming there's no holocaust.
Only retards conflate the court of public opinion with freedom of speech. You can say what you want, but that doesn't mean what you say is without consequence.

>>936765903
>>936766085
>Aside from OP being a bot
I'm not a bot. I just line to keep my files organized as opposed to having them having a string of random numbers which makes them impossible to find in my folder full of thousands of images.

>>936766374
>Nobody is being arrested for claiming there's no holocaust.
Holocaust denial is illegal in many western countries. People get fined and imprisoned for it. The United States is an exception, but even there Trump is deporting people if they criticize Israel.

>>936766085
>America is the only country with freedom of speech
You say that when you can be refused contracts for criticisms of Israel

>>936765545 (OP)
Muslims stop freedom. Point invalid

>>936765545 (OP)
>when they're not allowed to criticize jews or question the holocaust?
but you can
you won't be arrested or put in jail for saying those things

>>936767658
>Muslims stop freedom. Point invalid
Whataboutism. Your logical fallacy doesn't invalidate the point.

>>936768099
>you won't be arrested or put in jail for saying those things
People are being deported for it right now as we speak.

>>936770996
why do you people just blatantly make shit up and lie like this?

>>936771086
>why do you people just blatantly make shit up and lie like this?
https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-administration-argues-it-can-deport-prominent-anti-israel-activist-over-his-beliefs/

>>936771894
1) wanting to do something is not the same as having actually done it
2) it's still talking about deporting non-citizens, not US citizens
you can't deport citizens for things they say

>>936772063
>no one is being deported for it
>it's actually still talking about deporting non-citizens
huh?

>>936766374
If the consequence is you get shipped to El Salvador by the gubmint without a trial how is that free speech?

>>936772312
which one of those is false?

>>936772775
no one is being deported for it

>>936772807
I'm not the one claiming they were, this post was: >>936770996
>>936771894

>>936772898
You were claiming they weren't being deported for it.

>>936772963
was someone deported?

>>936773114
Visas have been stripped and deportation proceedings ongoing.

>>936772963
>>936770996
if you're not a citizen and you're out protesting against the US, especially on university campuses, why the fuck are you here? get the fuck out

>>936773233
maybe don't talk shit about the country you're here on a visa for
you don't have the same rights as everyone else, visas can be revoked for all kinds of things, you have to be on your best behavior

>>936773271
>if you're not a citizen and you're out protesting against the Israel, especially on university campuses, why the fuck are you here? get the fuck out
ftfy

>>936773352
They talked bad about Israel.

>>936773412
you shouldn't be protesting anything related to politics at all on university campuses in the first place
people are trying to go to class and get an education, go protest your political shit somewhere else

>>936773505
Yes anon, people should just shut up and never criticize America's owner.

>>936773538
that's not at all what I said

>>936773538
are you aware that people go to university campuses to protest, who don't even attend the school?
political protests have no place there, go do it somewhere else more appropriate that isn't disruptive to the students that don't care about your political bullshit

>>936773599
How is it not what you said? Did they get their visas pulled for not getting good grades?

>>936773663
>are you aware that people go to university campuses to protest
and that has to do with people who attend that university, that also spoke out against genocide, how?

>>936773748
>How is it not what you said?
I didn't say you can't criticize anyone, I said don't do it on university campuses, there's millions of other places you can go

>>936773871
>I said don't do it on university campuses
Why? There has been plenty of protests on american university campuses throughout our history.

>>936773780
>and that has to do with people who attend that university
not everyone at the university shares those views, and the protest has nothing to do with the school, it has no place there, do it somewhere else

>>936773906
so? that doesn't mean it should keep happening just because it happened before, what kind of retarded reasoning is that?

>>936773271
>protesting against the US
Israel =/= the US. The sooner we severe that bondage the better.

You can deny the holocaust if you want, makes it easier to see who is the braindead antisemite, just like Khameini.

>>936773955
It means it is an established place where people have voiced their opinions

>>936773969
good luck with that

>>936773912
>not everyone at the university shares those views
I don't think they ever claimed they did.
> the protest has nothing to do with the school
sometimes it did, due schools investing in Israeli/Israeli adjacent companies.

>>936774000
and it has no place there, unless it's protesting specific to the school and its policies, it doesn't belong there

>>936774048
see >>936774030

>>936774074
companies are not the government

>>936774153
You can criticize both the Israeli government and ask for the school to not invest money into companies that support it.

>>936774215
I would recommend not doing either if you're here on the privilege of a visa
imagine going to a foreign country to attend university, and then talking shit about your university and the country that's hosting you? how stupid do you have to be?

>>936774375
so like I said, you think people should just shut up.

>>936774375
>the country that's hosting you?
Once again, the US is not Israel

>>936774422
I would recommend it if you're not a citizen of the country, yes

>>936774445
criticizing the US's allies and its foreign policy is criticizing the US, how dumb are you?

>>936774521
*wouldn't

>>936774542
>criticizing the US's allies and its foreign policy is criticizing the US
wrong

>>936774521
Well I'm glad you wasted 15 minutes of denial to come back to what I said.

>>936774542
Criticizing any other country in the world, ally or not wouldn't get your visa revoked.

>>936774703
citizens and non-citizens here on a visa to attend school do not have the same rights, or expectations of rights
either way political protests should not be held on university campuses

>>936774762
I dare you to try it

>>936774762
https://www.euronews.com/2025/04/03/four-foreign-activists-face-deportation-from-germany-after-berlin-university-sit-in

>>936774890
Inside America. I thought you would have figured that out, but apparently not.

>>936774844
Fuck Germany, fuck Russia, fuck China, fuck Israel and more importantly FUCK AUSTRALIA

>>936774924
and I said try that in any other country
there's no reason the US should allow it either, and they can decide to revoke your visa at any time, why would you chance it by protesting?

>>936774786
>citizens and non-citizens here on a visa to attend school do not have the same rights
Not all of the same rights, but there are some rights that are shared, freedom of speech being one.

>>936774975
and I said "Criticizing any other country in the world, ally or not wouldn't get your visa revoked in response to "criticizing the US's allies and its foreign policy is criticizing the US"

>>936775029
you're going to have a hard time attending school if you get deported

>>936775123
Why would I get deported? Have I criticized Israel?

>>936775142
>I don't know what an impersonal you is

>>936775251
What are we now going to be thought policed on Israel?

>>936775593
you can think whatever you want
but if you're in a country on a visa, you run the risk of getting deported if you fuck around

>>936775782
>you run the risk of getting deported if you speak about human rights violations
Land of the free

>>936776105
for citizens, yes

>>936776228
It seems like no one qualifies that afterwards

>>936776228
You can't have freedom of speech for only one group of people without infringing on other rights.

>>936776347
how does citizens having freedom of speech infringe on the rights of non-citizens and illegals?

>>936776452
>go to protest
>have to provide proof of citizenship to enter the protest

>>936776509
what?

>>936776599
>hold sign on corner saying "feds suck"
>cops come up and demand for proof of citizenship

>>936776599
>other rights
not
>other's rights

>>936776698
that makes even less sense
and no one said this was limited to freedom of speech, that was just the one being discussed

>>936776744
>that makes even less sense
I pointed out 2 situations where the 4th amendment would be violated to enforce only citizens having the 1st amendment.

>>936765545 (OP)
When Westerners say "freedom" they only mean the freedom to indulge in every vice and evil without criticism. To be obese and gluttonous, to kill our unborn, to revel in debauch and filth, and so on ad nauseum. We do not have intellectual freedom, on the contrary, even outside of the Jewish Question, merely criticizing the decedent notions of "freedom" above mentioned is pariah.

>>936776795
no one said you had to go around proving citizenship to everyone in a protest
but if the cops get called to break up a protest and they find out you're not a citizen and here on a visa, you may find yourself deported
I don't know how you can't understand this, if you get caught you might be fucked
people don't have the right to commit robbery, but to it every day, and if they get arrested and charged, they can't then go and cry about all the other times they didn't get caught

>>936774024

>>936776938
>no one said you had to go around proving citizenship to everyone in a protest
Correct, because even non-citizens have a right to free speech. You're one of the few that believes they don't. Lets go further on the 1st and say we can force non-citizens to go to synagogues every day they're here, according to you, that wouldn't be wrong, because non-citizens should have no right to freedom of religion as well.
>people don't have the right to commit robbery
No one is talking about committing a crime, just exercising the first amendment.

>>936765545 (OP)
Who said we can't criticize them, you are doing it right now. Just because some platform owned by news doesn't want you to doesn't mean the entire aspect of freedom of speech is dissolved, it's censorship and even news channels practice it but, (you) are not censored.

>>936777368
>because non-citizens should have no right to freedom of religion as well.
no, because forcing someone to do something is not comparable to allowing them to do things

>>936777949
>no, because forcing someone
either they have rights or they don't anon.

>>936778005
rights allow you to do things, they don't compel you to do anything

>>936778150
The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the US Constitution protects individuals' right to practice their religion without government interference

>>936777904
The people who are being deported by the government for "antisemitism" are being censored, and not by a "platform" but by the state.

>>936778211
correct
do you know what "compel" means? are you ESL? you didn't refute what I said

>>936778322
You do know that not having that right, means they could in fact compel you, right?

>>936778355
no it can't, as the government can't compel anyone to practice religions

>>936778389
The government can't compel someone who is protected by the 1st, which you said non-citizens don't have.

>>936778432
that's not the only thing in play here, that right to practice religion isn't the only thing preventing the government from forcing anyone to adhere to a religion

>>936778497
Oh do tell me anon, what non-right do you think is preventing the government from forcing non-citizens to adhere to a religion?

>>936778620
can you explain how the government could compel anyone to adhere to a religion without violating its own constitution? citizen or not?

>>936778769
Easy, apparently non-citizens don't have rights.

>>936778821
that doesn't answer the question

Hey there! I'm a 21-year-old girl from the US, with a bit of a wild side and love to spice things up during our chats. I totally enjoy taking the lead and pushing boundaries to see just how far we can go together. I’m feeling super flirty and always down to explore some naughty fantasies. I get a little shy in person because of anxiety, so online connections are my jam! If you're looking for some thrilling conversations, hit me up. Add me on 4 the app: e-m-y z-e-t-h (make sure to merge it all together). Can't wait to chat!

>>936778984
It does anon. I clearly stated
>we can force non-citizens to go to synagogues every day they're here
While you can just do nothing towards citizens, who are protected.

>>936778769
>inb4 that's establishing a religion
Nah man, it's just "reinforcing good moral character"

>>936779128
>It does anon.
no it doesn't, you saying it doesn't make it possible

>>936779254
having non-citizens attend church wouldn't be the worst thing in the world

>>936779330
It wouldn't affect citizens. Now that I answered your question, mind answering the one I asked before you? right here >>936778620

>>936779458
>It wouldn't affect citizens
you're just repeating the same thing, that doesn't answer the question
what legal mechanism would allow the government to do such a thing without violating its own constitution?

>>936779596
Where in the constitution says non-citzens have the freedom of religion?

>>936779715
where in the constitution does it say the government can compel anyone to practice a religion?

>>936766085
>America is the only country with freedom of speech and no social media platform is owned by the American government so as such, freedom of speech doesn't exist on them.
You do realize that the entire point of historic public forums was to keep government overreach way from curtailing speech and the current status quo basically just means the government can put the squeeze on the social media platforms and effectively censor the modern, relevant, public forums that people use today?

The only reason why the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to social media is because people are so pig shit ignorant of their civil liberties? And, sure, while the 1st Amendment doesn't specifically say social media platforms in it's wording, it is a stone's throw away from being applicable if people had the knowledge and the will.

>Freedom of speech is a completely unique abstract-
Oh no. Without the illusion of freedom of speech the people would revolt. They have too much firepower. It is only "abstract" in the same way that "money is just paper," and yet without it things would be drastically different in very short order.

(cont.)

>>936780146
Where in the constitution does it say the government can compel anyone to stay quiet on human right abuses?

>>936766085
cont. from >>936780241

>- that exists in America and even then, it's still limited-
Only really because people are largely pig shit ignorant of their rights. Fuck dude, if people realized that people would ride their horses across public highways and streets without the need of a horse registry or a rider's license and that society didn't immediately collapse in spite of horse thievery and people killing horses in blatant acts of destruction of property? Well, shit, people might start to realize the intent was a practically absolute right to travel across the continental US that has slowly been stolen from us and that there should not only be no car registration but no diving licensing either. That might be an unsettling thought when someone has a shitbox "worth" a quarter of a million or twice their annual income, but who said one had to spend that much on a shitbox in the first place?

So in short, "limited" by pig shit ignorance in so many different ways, in so many different aspects.

>- and is completely arbitrarily upheld.
That's what the 2nd Amendment is for.

>>936780255
>compel anyone to stay quiet
that's not how you use that word
and whether or not terrible things happen in other countries, they aren't something that people should be interrupting others' education over at universities over, go protest about it somewhere else

>>936780446
>that's not how you use that word
It certainly is.
>stay quiet on these thing our greatest ally does or your visa will be revoked
>go to church or your visa will be revoked

>>936766374
Holy shit dude... just stop.

>Nobody is being arrested for claiming there's no holocaust.
Beyond the fact that this is explicitly not true for a place like Germany? The sad, and simple, fact of the matter is that a cop can arrest you because the sky is blue. Getting arrested or not getting arrested doesn't mean much.

>Only retards conflate the court of public opinion with freedom of speech.
No, because the whole point is the free expression of ideas. If I'm going to lose my job because a bunch of internet activists will try to get me fired? If a bunch of internet activists are going to make up some shit to try and get me killed by way of SWATing? ... well then I might think twice, or thrice, before I express that idea that the internet activists don't like, which sounds great if you're an internet activist, jackboot, authoritarian except for one thing:
... then the bad guys stop telling on themselves so much. So you trade the winning of the war to win a couple petty battles at best, all the while trampling over the right of people to be able to freely express themselves.

Why is this important? Well when the government does it too much people start to want to revolt and that is very fucking chaotic for everyone. The irony is that it is literally better for everyone to just let the speech be spoken.

>You can say what you want, but that doesn't mean what you say is without consequence.
It really should, especially without immediate consequence. Just because someone talks a big game doesn't mean they walk the walk anyway.

>>936780536
>It certainly is.
it certainly isn't, confirmed ESL
compel implies coercing someone to do something, not to not do something
>>stay quiet on these thing our greatest ally does or your visa will be revoked
>>go to church or your visa will be revoked
neither of these are acts of compelling an action
that's like saying if you threaten someone to not rob a store you're compelling them to not be a thief, that's not how that works, and isn't even correct

>>936780617
>It really should
no it shouldn't, and it isn't the case in the vast majority of the world

>>936780738
>neither of these are acts of compelling an action
Revocation of the visa would be considered force/pressure. Compelling someone into silence is a violation of free speech, just like compelling someone to go to church would be a violation of the free exercise clause.

>>936780939
Threats of revocation I mean

>>936780861
>no it shouldn't-
Yes it should. I gave a basic explanation as to why. You have no counter-argument.

>- and it isn't the case in the vast majority of the world
Yeah, the majority of the world is might makes right, or at least might makes. Is that really so enviable to you?

>>936766374
This makes the virgin seethe.

>>936781009
>I gave a basic explanation as to why.
and there are plenty of legal instances where there are consequences for things you say, you're not free to say whatever you want, whenever you want
a very basic example is libel and defamation

>>936766374
>You can say what you want, but that doesn't mean what you say is without consequence.
The government generally cannot punish you for the speech, unless it falls into the exceptions.

>>936781140
>and there are plenty of legal instances where there are consequences for things you say-
Sure. Let's go over why they're a false equivalence. Continue.

>- you're not free to say whatever you want, whenever you want-
In America? That is generally not true. You say whatever you want, unless it's social media which can algorithmically filter the second you hit the post button, which is an immediate consequence.

>- a very basic example is libel and defamation
Those aren't criminal offenses, and the onus is on the plaintiff to prove that the libel and defamation are not only actually libel and defamation, but they also have to prove damages done by the false information. In this respect, it's not that the person is getting penalized for speaking even. It's that they're getting penalized because the spoke lies and the lies caused quantifiable damage, and if you notice this is all in the forum of a court. The court process not only takes time, so not immediate consequences in any stretch of the imagination, but they also comb over evidence which the "court of public opinion" rare does, and definitely not in regards to a SWATing attempt or a firing attempt.

So, yeah. Major false equivalence.

>>936781422
>That is generally not true
for the most part, but there are exceptions, which is the point. you can largely say what you want, but not all the time, about anything, in any context
>unless it's social media
social media is run by private companies, not the government, they can employ whatever moderation they want, and remove content for no reason at all if they want, but generally have to at least remove illegal content regardless
>Those aren't criminal offenses
so? there's still legal consequences for it, you can't claim free speech protections if you defame someone, there would be no defamation if you could

>>936781732
>for the most part, but there are exceptions, which is the point.
Okay. So in essence your point is that if one can prove quantifiable damage then it's not that someone can't say a thing but that they have to pay the cost of what was damaged by their words, and I think most people would find that fair so long as the quantifiable damage is proven first.

>social media is run by private companies, not the government-
That's not actually true. What is true is that the two have intimate ties to one another. In essence, social media is ran by the government in the guise of private shell companies to circumnavigate around the 1st Amendment.

>- they can employ whatever moderation they want-
This practice should be stopped immediately.

>- and remove content for no reason at all if they want-
This practice should be stopped immediately.

>- but generally have to at least remove illegal content regardless
True.

>so?
So, ostensibly, they're not infringing on the 1st Amendment. It was to your point, and it's clear as day you're wielding legal terminology that is just a bit above your wheelhouse. I'm not as hostile as you might think I am.

>- there's still legal consequences for it, you can't claim free speech protections if you defame someone-
Not quite. Generally speaking, that is the go-to defense toward claims of defamation.

>- there would be no defamation if you could
Well no. Because after the judgment? After the restitution? ... ostensibly you could go right back to fibbing about that person so long as those fibs did not cause any further quantifiable damage which would then have to be adjudicated as a fresh case.

>>936782448
>but that they have to pay the cost
did you just learn what "consequences" means?
>That's not actually true
it quite literally is true, free speech pertains to the government, not private entities, you don't have the right to say whatever you want on a private company's services and not have it removed, that's not what freedom of speech is
>This practice should be stopped immediately.
I don't disagree, but most social media websites would fold as they rely on heavy moderation to placate their users and advertisers
>Well no
well yes, if you could claim first amendment protections for making shit up about someone then defamation and libel couldn't exist

>>936783131
>did you just learn what "consequences" means?
I'm confused. What's your implication?

>it quite literally is true-
Based on what?

>- free speech pertains to the government, not private entities-
So if a family has many of it's members working in the government; one of their relations "starts a private company" but in all likelihood was pushed and prodded along that path by said government relations; the government relations secure tech from DARPA to just hand over to help the "started private company," the governmental family relations keep the dogs of the government away from the "private company;" and the "private company" has a bunch of feds working within it?

... that's "private" to you? As a start?

>- you don't have the right to say whatever you want on a private company's services and not have it removed, that's not what freedom of speech is
That's a more modern conception of "freedom of speech." Historically, freedom of speech is supposed to be at "the public forum." If the Founders were resurrected from the dead this moment, it would be open and shut, social media would be "the public forum" and freedom of speech would absolutely apply. Even if they were truly private entities--which they're not.

>I don't disagree, but most social media websites would fold as they rely on heavy moderation to placate their users and advertisers
If that's really the big issue, then why not just make them public utilities and be done with it?

>well yes, if you could claim first amendment protections for making shit up about someone then defamation and libel couldn't exist
You're misapplying the term "claim." What you have to understand is that you can sue anyone for anything and to do that you must forward some sort of "claim" to the court (and pay a filing fee).

>>936783708
NTA but aren't public forums, public areas? Like the government couldn't just seize a private theatre that hosts debate clubs and claim it's a public forum?

>>936783708
> What's your implication?
that you just figured out that saying whatever you want can indeed have consequences, and not everything someone says is always protected speech
>Based on what?
based on the law, private companies are free to moderate their platforms, they aren't run by the government, you do not have freedom of speech on reddit, facebook, or twitter, they can remove comments and posts you put on their platforms for literally any reason, or no reason at all
>So if a family has many of it's members working in the government
I'm not sure you even understand what the first amendment means, this example is babbling gibberish that goes nowhere
> then why not just make them public utilities and be done with it?
how and why would you do that or want that? the government shouldn't be running social media platforms, and I don't want my taxdollars funding it. if you don't like moderated forums then go make an unmoderated one and market it as such. and not only that, you'll be shocked to learn how much more heavily moderated they are outside the US when they have to adhere to each country's laws
>You're misapplying the term "claim."
no I'm not, I'm using it as in "successfully claim, meaning if you could claim first amendment protections to making up lies, and not have the claim denied, it means you would win in a defamation case every single time, making defamation laws and lawsuits null and void, as the first amendment protections would supersede any claims of defamation every single time
which is clearly not the case, because the first amendment doesn't apply to everything, everywhere, under all circumstances

>>936784030
>aren't public forums, public areas?
Public access is a key component, yes. The delineations between public and private property can get a bit messy, but I assume you're talking tradition, correct? If so, then absolutely "traditional" or "historic" public forums typically refer to a town square, the steps of city hall... but a public forum could also take place on a street corner. If someone wealthy owned an auditorium? They could open it to the public and hold a forum there.

>Like the government couldn't just seize a private theatre that hosts debate clubs and claim it's a public forum?
The could through use of eminent domain, which is the nuclear option on a long list of things they could try to pull, but they're disinclined to do so when they have town squares, city halls, or even little city events where they can make some announcement for... like really what would be the catalyst to cause them to want to seize a theater or a debate club? Usually what that would be, IME, is that in a particular venue they're talking some mad, but protected, shit about some sort of public official and the little dictator tyrant is searching for some sort of string to pull to stop that shit talking or cause some difficulty for them and usually that wouldn't be in the form of eminent domain, but you're talking about the seizure of private property, and that does implicate eminent domain. A "governmental taking."

>>936784537
>but I assume you're talking tradition, correct?
Tradition or even now a days. You couldn't force a private place to be a public forum. If the government wants to have a public forum online, they could create one, instead of forcing private companies to be one. I think even the founders would acknowledge that.

>>936784535
>that you just figured out that saying whatever you want can indeed have consequences, and not everything someone says is always protected speech
I think you've badly misinterpreted what I'm saying, and I think you're missing the point. It's not that in the case of libel or defamation that the person has been gagged. It's that if one can prove damage then they need to pay for the damage, if it is true that both the words said were fraudulent and caused damage. If the words were still fraudulent but didn't cause any damage? ... there's no legal consequence.

Does that make it more clear?

>based on the law, private companies are free to moderate their platforms, they aren't run by the government, you do not have freedom of speech on reddit, facebook, or twitter, they can remove comments and posts you put on their platforms for literally any reason, or no reason at all
And based on law private companies can't hire illegals, but with some fake papers here, and a blind eye turned there... ... why... quite a lot of private businesses happen to have illegal aliens as employees.

What I'm trying to tell you is that both corporations and the government LIE. And they LIE A LOT.

>I'm not sure you even understand what the first amendment means, this example is babbling gibberish that goes nowhere
Well what's the harm in answering the question then? Why evade it?

>how and why would you do that or want that?
I asked you a question. If you believe that social media companies shouldn't have to placate users and advertisers and resort to reliance on heavy moderation, then why wouldn't you want them to be public utilities?

>the government shouldn't be running social media platforms
The irony is that they already do.

>and I don't want my taxdollars funding it.
The irony is that they already help fund it.

(cont.)

>>936784535
>if you don't like moderated forums then go make an unmoderated one and market it as such.
And how would a single, private, un-moderated forum give the people their civil liberties back? I'm not seeing the connection here.

>and not only that, you'll be shocked to learn how much more heavily moderated they are outside the US when they have to adhere to each country's laws
... well how else would the US government get to get it's tendrils into another country in such a high profile environment as the forward face of a "private company"? Ultimately they still get the data, and ultimately it's all for Palantir.

>no I'm not,
Well then you're equivocating. Be that as it may, let's see what you mean. Continue.

>I'm using it as in "successfully claim, meaning if you could claim first amendment protections to making up lies, and not have the claim denied, it means you would win in a defamation case every single time, making defamation laws and lawsuits null and void, as the first amendment protections would supersede any claims of defamation every single time
You do understand that it is possible to lie about somebody, get sued for defamation, and ultimately win the case because the plaintiff couldn't prove damages, correct?

>>936784728
>Tradition or even now a days.
Okay.

>You couldn't force a private place to be a public forum.
Well, again, eminent domain, but that would assume that the government goes through the path of most resistance to see it done, and it would beg the question as to why they did that and did it this way.

Ultimately people are just more clever than that.

>If the government wants to have a public forum online, they could create one, instead of forcing private companies to be one. I think even the founders would acknowledge that.
Sure, that could be an answer to our modern situation. Or at the very least an alternative.

>>936785441
>Sure, that could be an answer to our modern situation.
It seems like the best option. The most I remember of people crying about social media sites isn't as much the banning but the "shadow banning", which being at a public forum doesn't guarantee people will hear/see you. Also you wouldn't have to agree to some corporate Terms of Service and Terms and Conditions and giving them the ability to sell your data.

>>936766085
Freedom of speech does not exist in America, see libel laws and hate speech laws. Additionally, stuff like CP regulations are constantly used on victimless artworks (and never on powerful figures), violating free speech concepts.

>>936785749
>It seems like the best option.
I, personally, think the best option is a reinforcement of, at least, the first 6 Amendments. Much harder to argue it's not in the public's best interest to have their civil liberties reinforced.

>The most I remember of people crying about social media sites isn't as much the banning but the "shadow banning", which being at a public forum doesn't guarantee people will hear/see you.
Well that's just it: everyone has access to block buttons because at an IRL public forum you can always walk away or talk to somebody else.

>Also you wouldn't have to agree to some corporate Terms of Service and Terms and Conditions and giving them the ability to sell your data.
Right, but... honestly, they'd just still take the data. The data taking is a whole other kettle of rancid, stinking, fish.

>>936766374
Incorrect, many states do in fact have Isreal boycott laws (a 1A violation), people have faced illegal reprisal when claiming facts about Jews from the feds, and of course we have a ngo hitman crew called the ADL that goes after anyone anti-Jew. People have LITERALLY been shot in the face by the government for saying shit under Biden's regime. Reminder we had a global riot for a black criminal who got killed illegally, so even if this guy was a "criminal", he should have had a trial not a bullet to the face, regardless of resistance.

Additionally, liberals are currently making a big deal about all the non-citizens being deported for going against Jews (technically not protected, but they like screaming about it). That is government action against free speech as well, despite it being "legal".

You are SUPPOSED to be free of consequences if the 1A worked. It doesn't. Political opinions have political consequences, just like any other dictatorship, kingship, or 3rd world country.

>>936786126
>honestly, they'd just still take the data.
maybe, idk
>The data taking is a whole other kettle of rancid, stinking, fish.
While in public you generally don't have a right to privacy, but then again to speak at a public forum you don't need to upload a photo of yourself, give access to other things on your phone, the names of those you associate with, private communications with others, etc.

>>936765545 (OP)
Looking through his Twitter and holy shit, his Twitter is 100% BASED.

>>936766672
>The United States is an exception
We are not. You get de-personed for those opinions, you just don't see jail time. You just get cut off from everything until you are re-educated, social credit style.

4chan is only the exception because we are anon and the feds want a honeypot. Jews would absolutely silence everyone here if they could legally though.

>>936786245
>maybe, idk
I mean they lied about the NSA spying on Americans for years... the government is interested in and wants your data. Doesn't mean they hire a special agent just for you, but they compile your data and as long as you remain practically completely irrelevant you are largely protected by concealment of the crowd. Should you become relevant? They'll have some algorithm sift through your data a thousand different ways and have how ever many agents necessary to comb through the juicy bits the algorithm pings on to make the whole endeavor manageable.

So they want your data, they'll use your data if it becomes relevant. The fact that they'll find what they want about you through black doors is a foregone conclusion as this point. What makes it all trickier is finding the white doors of plausible deniability to make it seem they just happened to stumble on what they needed to haul your ass away. Remember, they got Al Capone on tax fraud. Tax fraud. That was the "big concern," lying on his taxes. Tsk tsk, right?

>While in public you generally don't have a right to privacy, but then again to speak at a public forum you don't need to upload a photo of yourself, give access to other things on your phone, the names of those you associate with, private communications with others, etc.
Those are all valid concerns, but of secondary import compared to free expression and the free flow of ideas, at least IMO.

At any rate... I have to step away now. Spent a little bit too much time on this and not enough on my work. Best of luck to you all, /b/ros. Stay safe.

>>936786341

>>936765545 (OP)
You just questioned the holocaust.
Did anyone break down your door and arrest you? Welcome to the west where Your speech is free.

>>936789105
>Did anyone break down your door and arrest you?
If I lived in Germany, France, Britain, or some other Western country where holocaust denial was a crime, then something like that very well might happen to me for posting on here. But I am American and I will concede that this country doesn't go quite as far with that (yet), but people are nonetheless being deported or expelled from colleges for this sort of thing, yes. So in light of these facts do we really live in a free country?

>>936789690
Deportation of illegals.
Less than 3 exceptions.
Yep they deported one actual American who will probably get a three million dollar settlement.

I am afraid I have very little sympathy for illegal or undocumented workers. Syonora.

I would enforce 1099 laws and impose very heavy fines on any employer foe each occurrence.