from the reimagining-the-first-amendment dept
To be clear, the right of free speech given in the first amendment is the right to express any opinion without fear of repercussions.
There is no inherent right that your opinions must be given a platform, or that any particular platform has the right to exist.
The first amendment is entirely orthogonal to the question of whether or not TikTok should be allowed to operate in the US.
Yep, this is where libs come out to defend the wacky state instead of basic human rights.
I expected a bigger celebration after months of them cheering on this ban.
Tiktok is a basic human right? Fuck sake what are you like.
Well, except for the “corporate personhood” nonsense.
Well ofc money is speech! How ludicrous to assume otherwise… It’s an amazing system here… They ban apps for the poors while the rich control all media. Why don’t these TikTok kids understand this? \s
If money is speech, then bullets are as well.
I’d like to have a ‘word’ with some billionaires.
Fucking bullshit person hood. If it can’t be shot outside a hotel for crimes against humanity, it isn’t a person.
Yeah…I’d be alarmed about time travel if the founding fathers HAD strictly approved the concept of social media.
I’d like to say if they COULD have somehow been introduced to tiktok, they would have given up on founding America.
“THIS is what our work becomes???”
To be clear, the right of free speech given in the first amendment is the right to express any opinion without fear of repercussions.
Not the case. The 1st Amendment provides freedom of speech without fear of repercussions by the U.S. government. We do not have the right to express any opinion without repercussions from literally any other source.
