Comment by davidmurdoch
1 year ago
I mean it in the context of being able to criticize the US government and its officials. I think that's what most from the US think is why free speech is so important.
Hate speech is a slippery slope that I'm not knowledgeable enough in to speak to more in depth.
Who is preventing someone from criticizing the US government? Maybe I’m dense but I don’t understand what that has to do with anything being discussed here.
Also, once again, even if you’re banned from saying something on social media, no free speech rights (in any sense of the term) are lost. You are free to say it elsewhere via a mechanism that does not give you automatic free reach.
The context of the whole conversation is related to the Brazilian government silencing it's opponents:
> Brazil’s Supreme Court has drastically expanded its power to counter the antidemocratic stances of Mr. Bolsonaro and his supporters.
https://archive.is/plQFT
Being allowed to criticize our government (and any government) is precisely the "free speech" Americans hold dear. Brazil doesn't seem to find that to be of value, hence the comment I made in response to someone saying X should comply with the government of Brazil: "I'm guessing you're not a huge proponent of free speech".
So you were talking about the ability for people to criticize the Brazilian government, not the US government as you stated. Brazil is not the US and free speech protections there are not the same as they are in the US.
Regardless, I don’t believe the removal of content from one washed-up spammy social media site constitutes an infringement of free speech, in any sense of the term.
8 replies →