Probably the same mentality as taxes/healthcare
It’s always “I shouldn’t have to pay for everyone else’s healthcare 🤬🤬🤬”
But never “everyone pays less than they already are into healthcare and the actual service becomes free for everyone but wealthy people don’t make billions of dollars off your need to live”
It’s always “I shouldn’t have to pay for everyone else’s healthcare 🤬🤬🤬”
They already are.
I mean not quite, they pay for a portion of it through insurance, but since society is underinsured, the rest of the healthcare just doesn’t get done and people die.
Incorrect. Hospitals must attend emergency patients, even if uninsured.
They make up the costs by charging everyone else more for everything. They also have to jack up costs to pay for malpractice insurance because doctors get sued frequently for all kind of reasons (valid and not).
One could argue that universal healthcare and fixes to patient rights so that civil lawsuits weren’t the only means of redressing a medical wrongdoing would all actually be a lot cheaper for everyone because it properly distributes risks and costs into society as a whole, and reduces long-term and recurrent medical costs. Instead of dumping all that onto “individual responsibility” in such a way that owners of hospitals and insurance companies get rich while everyone else suffers.
If you only go to a doctor when it’s an emergency, one of those emergencies will be one when it’s already too late, but a simple checkup when the pain started or something was amiss would have saved you.
No. Quite.
It’s baked into the premiums. If you have health insurance, you are already subsidizing the health care of others.
To expand on this (and any ire that comes through later on is not pointed at you), that’s literally how insurance works. All of the premiums are pooled together, and the costs for everyone are paid out of that pool. Except that private insurers with profit motives are inserted in between, so it costs even more.
Single payer would be less expensive and provide for more people, but ohhh noooo that would be socialism! You’re goddamned right, let’s fucking go already.
All I’m saying is that the service provided is subpar, because the cost prohibits people from seeking medical attention often enough.
The First Amendment prohibits Congress from making laws that limit the freedom of speech, or of the press. That’s all it does (with respect to speech). It does not guarantee that anyone who speaks will be listened to, nor does it guarantee that the press will treat every speaker equally. Nor does it mean that those speakers are exempt from the consequences of their statements.
Even with the strong first amendment wording, we do have some exceptions where generally there is another constitutional right that it is weighted against, such as copyright. And there is a long discussion there specifically about whether false statements are protected.
The “Freeze Peach” crowd wants not only the right to spout lies as truth, but they want the right to have the public believe their lies and disbelieve the truth, just because they say so. Our government can’t stop them from saying those things, but the rest of us (including the press) have every right to point out how bonkers they are.
The First Amendment prohibits Congress from making laws that limit the freedom of speech, or of the press.
Unless it conflicts with someone else’s rights, which is why laws against speech that incites violence is constitutional. Yes, you pointed it out later, but that undermines it being stated as directly as this sentence.
The actual text is that absolute, though:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The exceptions have been hammered out in the courts over the years, where this amendment conflicts with other Constitutionally-protected rights. But the fact that this is here, in the very first Amendment, in such an absolute fashion means it must be given a lot of deference when balanced against other things.
it must be given a lot of deference when balanced against other things.
By who? Who has to defer to this interpretation? That’s what matters.
The Supreme Court is not required to decide anything in any particular way. The Constitution could literally say “the sky is blue” and the Supreme Court would have it within their power to decide that the sky is not blue. Forget what the Constitution says. It only matters who has the power to interpret it.
Fucking vote, so we can get more judges on the court who don’t accept private plane flights and free houses from wealthy donors.
Well, you’re not wrong, but that’s an entirely different context
Like any right, one person’s right to free speech will sometimes conflict with someone else’s rights. There are many situations where the right to free speech must yield to other rights. Libel, slander, terroristic threats, racketeering are clear examples.
Americans have more limited speech than most of the developed world. The US is just good at marketing. In political terms, that’s propaganda. Almost everything you say that could get you in trouble, really could get you in trouble legally. There are laws for everything in the US.
The Conversation - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for The Conversation:
MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Very High - Australia
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
My fellow citizens are shitheads.
Removed by mod
If you come into my house party, then yes, expect some basic ground rules. If you turn out to be an asshole, or I just plain don’t like you, you’re out. Free speech goes both ways. You can stand out in the street and speak as much as you want.
What does your experience on social media have to do with free speech?
Removed by mod
So you just joined a few hours ago?
Removed by mod
Welcome back
deleted by creator
Silenced how? Which “wrong” opinion did you express? And to which crowd?
Interesting - as the article notes the first amendment was specifically implemented to protect unpopular view points - which is tricky because it does mean that white supremacists have the same right to voice their ideas as critical race theorists - but how do we balance that hate speech should have the same footing as voicing concerns around oppression?
even more so when those that are oppressed will have a harder time of being heard in the first place? should the law (as the 1st amendment specifically says that a view not held by society is still protected) tolerate hate and bigotry? it appears the nazi bar is guarded by the first amendment :/
how do we balance that hate speech should have the same footing as voicing concerns around oppression?
Nowhere in the 1st amendment does it require that all speech have the same footing. It just means that it cannot be illegal at the federal level to say what you want. It carries no stipulations that platforms need to tolerate it being present, or that anyone has to listen to it, or that you can’t kick someone out of your home or business for it.
It just means that it cannot be illegal at the federal level to say what you want.
Which is how we end up with a multi-billion dollar propaganda network spewing conservative lies and coordinating with a political party and calling itself “news.”
Clearly some work is needed.
We had the Fairness Doctrine up until 1987 when, guess who, Ronald Reagan killed it.
The Fairness Doctrine wasn’t anything close to what I’d call a comprehensive solution to this problem, but it was about the last time that journalists were held to any sort of legal standard. After it was repealed you can pretty much say whatever you want on your news network unless you get sued for libel by an individual, and even that isn’t actually a crime, it’s a class 2 misdemeanor. Just write the affected party a paycheck and do it to someone else tomorrow.
I wonder if some sort of “truth in labeling” law could curb what gets referred to as news? Like, say what you want, but unless you can prove it you’re not allowed to call it news. Would that help to prevent the “they shouldn’t have taken me seriously” defense?
Yup! This is mostly self regulating. If you (not you personally)are a real jerk, people don’t have to listen to you or amplifiy your message. It is actually kind of a beautiful thing to watch in practice.
I would be curious to know how these views change when we break things down further to differentiate between government action vs private action, actively banning things vs passively choosing not to support things, and categorical exceptions to free speech like slander or incitement.
I suspect that some of the people responding would change their answers depending on exactly who is restricting speech, how they are doing it and what their justification is.
