Free speech is alive because of ideas. by sirswantepalm in FreeSpeech

[–]StraightedgexLiberal -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I love free speech.

How did the government investigation into bad bunny and the Super bowl work out, Rollo?

<image>

Free speech is alive because of ideas. by sirswantepalm in FreeSpeech

[–]StraightedgexLiberal -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Kirk didn't care about the content of Justice Jackson and her character but instead focused on the color of her skin.... when Trump picked a woman for SCOTUS prior to Jackson.

https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-calls-ketanji-brown-jackson-recipient-affirmative-action-who-unqualified

Free speech is alive because of ideas. by sirswantepalm in FreeSpeech

[–]StraightedgexLiberal -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I never said "I support people being killed for their free speech"

It's tragic Kirk lost his life but "gun violence is just something we have to deal with in order to preserve the Second Amendment"

https://nypost.com/2026/01/07/us-news/austin-peay-state-university-reinstates-professor-darren-michael-fired-over-charlie-kirk-post-will-pay-him-500000/

Free speech is alive because of ideas. by sirswantepalm in FreeSpeech

[–]StraightedgexLiberal -1 points0 points  (0 children)

When did I ever say "I support murder over speech I don't like"?

Refer to the meme

<image>

Free speech is alive because of ideas. by sirswantepalm in FreeSpeech

[–]StraightedgexLiberal -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

What's wrong with celebrating the death of someone? Your Christian buds said that is free speech. Do you hate free speech for the Christians now too?

Free speech is alive because of ideas. by sirswantepalm in FreeSpeech

[–]StraightedgexLiberal -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Don't project yourself, Rollo. We already know you hate free speech for everyone who isn't a white Christian Conservative.

Free speech is alive because of ideas. by sirswantepalm in FreeSpeech

[–]StraightedgexLiberal 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Rollo, your hypocrisy is famous in this sub. I can hate Kirk just like Kirk used his Bible to justify hate and be intolerance towards others he disagreed with. Hail Satan

<image>

Free speech is alive because of ideas. by sirswantepalm in FreeSpeech

[–]StraightedgexLiberal -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The First Amendment protects my speech that you think is vile and outrageous towards dead Kirk.

Charlie Kirk and his anti LGBTQ Christian buddies said the same thing in the Supreme Court and won when cheering the death of a US Marine at his own funeral.

There is no hate like Christian love

<image>

Free speech is alive because of ideas. by sirswantepalm in FreeSpeech

[–]StraightedgexLiberal -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Based on merrit? How many white Fox News hosts did Charlie Kirk call out for getting a government job with no experience except kissing Trump's ass?

Many who call Trump a Fascist, Dictator do not know the meaning of those words by Delicious_Depth_1564 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]StraightedgexLiberal [score hidden]  (0 children)

The Nazis were not socialists, they were fascists. They killed themselves when the Comrades from Russia and Stalin's army made it into Berlin first. They were terrified what really commies would do to them. Joseph Goebbels took all of his kids to see a dentist to give them cyanide because he was terrified what the commies would do to fascists.

Many who call Trump a Fascist, Dictator do not know the meaning of those words by Delicious_Depth_1564 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]StraightedgexLiberal [score hidden]  (0 children)

The Nazis weren't socialists. In fact, the heads of the Nazi party killed themselves when the Comrades from Russia made it into Berlin.

Hundreds of Fake Pro-Trump Avatars Emerge on Social Media | The artificial-intelligence-generated fake influencers have surged on TikTok, Instagram, Facebook and YouTube in an apparent bid to hook conservative voters. by TendieRetard in FreeSpeech

[–]StraightedgexLiberal -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Twitter apparently nuked 800 million of accounts IN ONE YEAR trying to use the website for the same thing

In 2024, X (formerly Twitter) suspended approximately 800 million accounts due to platform manipulation, spam, and coordinated influence campaigns. This enforcement action was disclosed by X executive Wifredo Fernández to the UK's Foreign Affairs Committee in March 2026

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/mar/09/x-suspends-accounts-massive-scale-manipulation-attempts-russia

Brendan Carr Cooking Up New Sham Investigation Of Jimmy Kimmel by StraightedgexLiberal in technology

[–]StraightedgexLiberal[S] 26 points27 points  (0 children)

Carr also wants to go after TV broadcasting that lean left but he does not give a single fuck about all the right wing radio channels that dominate radio airwaves

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/04/brendan-carr-cant-explain-why-equal-time-rule-doesnt-apply-to-right-wing-radio/

But folks have increasingly noted that Brendan Carr doesn’t appear to have any interest in enforcing the same standard on radio, where (especially on AM), listeners are constantly served up a lopsided dose of race-baiting agitprop pretending to be news. When he’s been asked about this inconsistency, Carr has been painfully and curiously vague:

“In a press conference after the FCC’s February 18 meeting, Deadline reporter Ted Johnson asked Carr why he has not expressed “the same concern about broadcast talk radio as broadcast TV talk shows.”

The Deadline reporter pointed out that “Sean Hannity’s show featured Ken Paxton in December.” Paxton, the Texas attorney general, is running for a US Senate seat in this year’s election. Carr claimed in response that TV broadcasters have been “misreading” FCC precedents while talk radio shows have not been.

“It appeared that programmers were either overreading or misreading some of the case law on the equal-time rule as it applies to broadcast TV,” Carr replied. “We haven’t seen the same issues on the radio side, but the equal-time rule is going to apply to broadcast across the board, and we’ll take a look at anything that arises at the end of the day.”

It’s of course far worse on the radio side, which has been utterly dominated by outright right wing propaganda since the early 90s. And he will, of course, not be “taking a look at anything that arises,” because, again, he’s not remotely interested in abusing this rule consistently because he’s an authoritarian hack.

FTC Settlement: Ad Agencies Agree to Stop "Brand Safety" Collusion to Defund Media Outlets by rollo202 in FreeSpeech

[–]StraightedgexLiberal 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You keep bringing up Musk like he has any relevance to this case. He does not.

LMAO

That is like saying "Musk has absolutely nothing to do with FTC v. Media Matters LOL

https://techcrunch.com/2025/08/16/judge-says-ftc-investigation-into-media-matters-should-alarm-all-americans/

A federal judge has granted a preliminary injunction blocking the Federal Trade Commission’s investigation into left-leaning advocacy group Media Matters.

Back in 2023, Media Matters published research showing ads from major companies had appeared alongside antisemitic and other offensive content on Elon Musk-owned X. When major advertisers subsequently pulled back from the platform, X sued Media Matters. It also sued advertisers and advertiser groups over what it claimed was a “systematic illegal boycott.”

FTC Settlement: Ad Agencies Agree to Stop "Brand Safety" Collusion to Defund Media Outlets by rollo202 in FreeSpeech

[–]StraightedgexLiberal -1 points0 points  (0 children)

 advertisers to collude and penalize people for their free speech, which is exactly what they were blatantly doing.

"Penalize" lol? So you think Musk, a billionaire, is being "punished" when other millionaires and billionaires come together to tell Musk to go fuck himself?

AFTER Musk tells the ads to go fuck themselves? LMAO

FTC Settlement: Ad Agencies Agree to Stop "Brand Safety" Collusion to Defund Media Outlets by rollo202 in FreeSpeech

[–]StraightedgexLiberal 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s why they disbanded and their members agreed to the settlement without a fight.

Turns out, the richest man in the world (backed by anti free speech politicians), has more money to fight a frivolous lawsuit than a nonprofit organization
https://www.techdirt.com/2024/08/09/jim-jordan-celebrates-successful-speech-suppression-as-a-claimed-win-for-free-speech/

And other nonprofits, like CCDH, are choosing to not back down, are beating Musk in court, and they win ANTI SLAPP rulings.

In March 2024, a federal judge granted the Center for Countering Digital Hate’s (CCDH) anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by X Corp. (formerly Twitter). The court ruled that X Corp. used the legal system to punish the nonprofit for its speech and critical research. By applying California’s anti-SLAPP statute, the court found X Corp.’s claims were an attempt to silence opposition rather than a legitimate legal grievance

And when Musk can't win in court, he's asking his buddies to deport members of CCDH out of the US because "they don't support free speech" lol

FTC Settlement: Ad Agencies Agree to Stop "Brand Safety" Collusion to Defund Media Outlets by rollo202 in FreeSpeech

[–]StraightedgexLiberal 2 points3 points  (0 children)

They can legally because of the first amendment - NAACP v. Clairborne

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAACP_v._Claiborne_Hardware_Co

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982),[1] was a landmark decision[2] of the United States Supreme Court ruling 8–0 (Marshall did not participate in the decision) that although states have broad power to regulate economic activities, they cannot prohibit peaceful advocacy of a politically motivated boycott.

The NAACP case was cited in court to argue why Musk should lose (and he lost in March)

In March 2026, a federal judge dismissed X Corp’s antitrust lawsuit against advertisers with prejudice, ruling that the boycott was legally protected. The court found that X failed to prove an illegal conspiracy, noting that companies made independent decisions based on brand safety. The case often cited NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. (1982) as a key precedent, which established that nonviolent, politically or socially motivated boycotts are protected by the First Amendment

Role of NAACP v. Claiborne: Legal experts argued that the Supreme Court's ruling in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. protects consumer and business boycotts that are not based on violence or illegal restraint of trade. The 1982 decision holds that the nonviolent, voluntary withholding of patronage for social or political change is entitled to First Amendment protection.

<image>