Yeah, I'm kind of with him. I just get distracted by the term "free speech." That's a loaded term with some very specific definitions.

But I don't think our time is all that special in this regard. There are periods of time in our history where people's "free speech" (ug) was far more corrosively restrained by social pressure between ideological factions than these modern-day social media tantrums. E.g. McCarthyism, when a lot of people lost their jobs with no transparent display of evidence or due process whatsoever.

Before this thread, I had not realized how many people want the term "free speech" to only apply to constitutionally protected free speech. I think this is unnecessarily US-centric. Frankly I'm surprised that some of you otherwise mostly reasonable folks are getting high-centered on this.

What term would you prefer vitus use?

I think you're mistaken to object to me framing it in terms of "free speech." I am talking about free speech, which can be threatened or suppressed by a variety of factors or entities, not simply the government. It's possible that the government doesn't suppress free speech in society, but some other force does, in which case, free speech is still suppressed, and society still does not reap the benefits that we believe arise from free speech.

What you're talking about is the First Amendment and the protections it provides. I'm speaking of free speech more generally.

If large numbers of people wouldn't even think of posting a partisan thought publicly on social media for fear of losing their jobs, I submit that freedom of speech has already taken a hit. No, nobody's Constitutional rights have been violated. But it's hardly the height of freedom, either.

And yeah, I get that there are consequences to free speech, and there should be. But the consequences should be organic and proportional to the speech. Simply saying that "you're free to speech, you just have to deal with the consequence of losing your ability to support yourself" is sort of ridiculous. I might just as well say that we'd be equally free of government oppression even if we repealed the First Amendment. After all, you'd still be free to speak- you just might have to face the consequence of going to jail.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I don't think it's U.S.-centric. The origins are Greek/Roman, and the primary definition has long been centered on being a legal right. What vitus is talking about is rather "freedom from societal sanction" (stealing from Wikipedia entry). That's different than legality. Legality always carries the baggage of the government weighing in.

I'd prefer vitus use the term "can't-everyone-just-get-along-and-stop-being-douche-bags-for-fucks-sake-because-damn."

Yeah, I hear you. I just read the word "right" and I think "legal right." You're thinking "natural right." Personally I think the only things worth calling a "right" are the ones legally enforced. Everything else is just wishful thinking - hoping people act decently.

But legal vs. natural is a whole other debate thread.

We agree with each other on the fundamental issue, so let's just end it there.

Um okay

So cute you think a) the vice president opens his mail b) he gives a flying fuck

I'm against killing babies but the real reason I boycott Jim Beam is because it tastes horrible.

They should fire her and hire that FBI agent as spokesperson.

---

“Read the transcript.”

Now this Hannity Keurig-smashing thing is just idiotic, and encouraged by Hannity himself. Seemingly bad business by Hannity anyway. If you're a potential new Hannity advertiser - even one with corprorate ideology consistent with Hannity - wouldn't you now think twice about signing that advertising contract if you think that Hannity is going to throw your company under the bus if something goes south?

Hannity really is bad for America.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I'm just now reading about the Hannity Keureg dustup for the first time. Wow.

The internet taketh away, but it sure does giveth.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

“Sorry, I was off Twitter for a while,” wrote the author Geraldine DeRuiter. “It appears that people are destroying coffee machines to show their support of child molesters?”

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?