Edit: Guess who won't face any accountability.
this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2025
2026 points (99.1% liked)
Microblog Memes
9193 readers
2605 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Being fired from your job over things you said has nothing to do with the right to free speech. That right means the government won't punish you. It does not stop anyone else from punishing you.
But you can easily make the argument MSNBC is suppressing there own "journalists" speech to not face backlash from the government. Just because the government isn't directly coming after an individual doesn't mean that they aren't at least attempting to suppress speech.
We've plenty of examples of Trump ignoring outlets he doesn't favor. And I wouldn't be surprised if he's outright banned some from attending press events.
What if the government is putting pressure on the organization.
Then it becomes a free speech issue.
You mean like back in 2020-21, when the Biden admin was putting pressure on Twitter to ban anyone who was critical of their COVID policies, and they even ended up deplatforming the guy who pioneered mRNA vaccines?
Yup, that is classic suppression. Of course you could argue that is was for the benefit of public health as opposed to a witch hunt to get a bunch of people fired for not worshipping an alt-right propagandist.
You don't think celebrating the murder of a political enemy on national TV isn't setting a dangerous precedent to encourage more political violence from both sides? Do you really want to live in a world where people just get shot for having a different opinion from yours?
First of all no one did this on national TV. Perhaps you referring to edge lords on the Internet making snide or rude comments. This is nothing to worry about. I heard people talk about hanging or shooting Obama for several years when I lived in Idaho. Celebrating and fantasizing about killing the President did absolutely nothing.
Second, we already live in a society where the right wing is constantly calling for violence. They have been openly talking about killing people from the Democratic party for decades. Rush Limbaugh was particularly found of this and he received the Medal of Freedom.
Let's be clear here, a couple of edgy people have celebrated his death. A lot of people recognize he was a piece of shit and are not upset at all other than to say no one should have to die this way.
The violent rhetoric comes regularly from the conservatives. Even the president of the United States sent a message he was bringing the Department of War to Chicago to enact an apocalypse. Kind of blows a few edge lords cheering on Kirk's death out of the motherfucking water.
Constitutional right to free speech? Yes. The overall philosophical concept of free speech? Less so.
It's just that only one side gets punished for it.
Unless you think we were endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights.
In which case the law is only there to enforce what we already own. And the concept of "Free Speech" goes past just laws.
Yes, some people misunderstand it. And others are too quick to "correct" them, even when their target is off.
Nobody is saying firing him was illegal.
Thank you! Seems like very few people understand the concept of free speech.
It doesn't mean you can say whatever you want with no consequences, which is seeming what a lot of people believe
Problem is there's a big undertone of the administration penalizing news organizations that day things that are unwelcome. Interfering with their business dealings, limiting their access to information they need to provide coverage, bending things a bit to help out "news" outlets that are treating him well.
No, you are conflating the first amendment, a limited protection of free speech, with free speech itself.
It is very much a violation of free speech, its just not illegal. It still is immoral.
EDIT: fixed second amendment to first amendment
*first amendment
Though some do conflate guns with free speech as well...
Thanks for the correction, my bad
I guess I misunderstood something here.
I just don't think you should be able to say whatever you want without any consequences. Eg. Call someone a slur, get punched in the face. I don't think that's a violation of free speech
I also agree you should not be able to call people slurs. You should be punished but not by your employer.
But neither divisive nor hateful is a slur, neither are they inaccurate statements about Kirk. NBC most likely did not take the decision to fire the guy based on ethics.
Now let's say another news anchor grows some balls and says "Israel is committing genocide" and their channel fires them. Do you also think it's not a violation of free speech? That they should face consequences?
I am talking about free speech, not the second amendment, morality and ethics not US law.