@Ganymede said in RL Anger:
@Lain said in RL Anger:
Then you should read the rest of my post. We also have: literal mobs of people rioting in the interest of shutting up anybody right of Noam Chomsky for being a "Nazi," ...
... private citizens. (By the way, I've no love for Chomsky; the guy is a fucking nutjob.)
I'm glad you think that a right wing mob barging into the classroom of a Marxist professor, beating him senseless, and destroying the physical classroom wouldn't qualify as speech suppression because they're "private citizens."
... CEOs of major companies publicly threatening to fire you for voting wrong ...
... private citizens.
I'm glad you think that a conservative CEO firing you for voting Hillary doesn't qualify as speech suppression because they're "private citizens."
... and cities revoking licenses to stage peaceful demonstrations at the last minute for ideological reasons and then sending in the police to shut those demonstrations down.
... which Charlottesville was enjoined from doing, pursuant to a federal court order.
This isn't a refutation of the point. There is an active speech suppression campaign going on from the left wing. Just because there is interference going on from the Feds in some cases doesn't make that reality go away.
Literally the only way the American Left could get worse on free speech is if they were to successfully institute a gulag system. It's atrocious. Frankly, it's worrying. Its like McCarthyism on steroids.
Wait, so it's the American Left that threatened to alter libel laws?
Libel is already illegal.
That argued that corporations should have unlimited donations to political campaigns?
Corporate donations to "private citizens" doesn't preclude anybody else from speaking. It's not speech suppression, and this isn't relevant.
That sought an exception based on religion for corporations to deny equal protection under the laws?
If refusing to hire homosexuals for religious reasons is speech suppression, then I don't see how refusing to hire people for voting wrong is speech suppression.
No, please, do tell.
Modern, white Americans have no idea what suppression or oppression means or is. I'll wager you haven't had an entire branch of your family imprisoned and then killed for trying to read books that were banned by the government.
>white Americans
Says the guy who thinks corporate campaign contributions are speech suppression but revocation of domain names and punitive termination for voting habits aren't. You have no idea what speech suppression is.
But, sure. Go on. Tell me how bad the American Left is, please! Continue.
(Don't get me wrong, the American Left is stupid, naïve, and fascist on a lot of other levels, but this ain't it.)
How is rioting specifically to suppress speech not "fascist" (if by that I assume you mean "authoritarian"), exactly?