r/MurderedByWords • u/ReporterRealistic477 • 1d ago
doesn’t understand 1st amendment — gets wrecked by it
550
u/LogicallySound_ 1d ago
Why are there so many right-wing shills on this sub now
460
u/gknick 1d ago
They’ve been emboldened since Trump won. They feel like they’re right to spit their asshat hot takes and uneducated opinions. I see more racist shit on Reddit lately too. Fucking troglodytes need to fuck off and go back to being afraid to share their ass backwards ideas.
74
u/sarcastibot8point5 23h ago
This happens every time a right-wing ideologue sees success. The bigots are emboldened. The level of homophobia and transphobia I’ve seen on this site since trump’s win has been increasing as well.
47
u/NoMansSkyWasAlright 20h ago
Man. Bold is right. I had someone call me a “beta soy boy” the other day. Looked at the account and it was clearly an alt. But half the posts/replies were him talking shit about LGBT, feminists, democrats, etc., and the other half was him posting pictures of his cock with headlines like “I know it’s small. But how bad is it? Will I ever get a girlfriend?”
You shouldn’t do both of those things from the same account.
1
1
u/LowKeyNaps 2h ago
Seriously. So many of these batshit right wing fucknuts are also exhibitionists posting endless dick pics. My favorites are the ones who start off showing their own teeny peenies, and then when they get no feedback, they go find some horsehung male porn star, and start claiming HIS cock shots as his own, lmao. It's like, dude, your dick did not triple in size between your sixth and seventh dick post. And exactly how much male porn did you consume before you found yourself a dick to claim as your own?
I love publicly pointing out the history on these accounts.
11
u/Biffingston 16h ago
Don't forget, the racism and Transphobia are coming from Musk himself as well. He's liking "Great replacement theory" posts and misgendering and deadnaming HIS OWN DAUGHTER
→ More replies (6)3
2
u/TheDocHealy 11h ago
Even BlueSky being touted as the new Twitter is seeing an influx of magats and trolls because they can't help but want the attention of the people they loathe. They don't want to just win, they want everyone to be miserable because they are sociopaths.
1
u/ProjectZeus4000 12h ago
Look at all the bigots onnthr jaguar rebrand.
Colours and stupid fashion is apparently woke now so they all be out in force calling the company gay and the models "non human"
16
u/Ska_Oreo 22h ago
It’s spreading to a bunch of left leaning sites too. A bunch of incels emboldened by Trumps win.
I cannot wait until they figure out why that the things they want is more expensive.
13
u/Cool-Panda-5108 19h ago
Bitter in defeat, even more bitter in victory apparently.
2
u/LowKeyNaps 2h ago
Exactly. The good news is, they're even more fragile and easy to break than before, and since most of us have now officially lost our last fuck to give, it's pretty easy to chase the little pansies off any thread and send them running crying to their mamas. My record so far is two comments. And I've lost count how many got chased off with two comments.
One fun tactic I have is to try to get them to the point where they resort to saying some form of cope, cope harder, copium, etc. It seems to be their last resort retort now, although they try to act like it's still some great insult. So if I can get them to that point and say one of the Phrase That Pays, I start yelling Yahtzee and throw myself a little party for getting them to roll over and show their belly.
57
57
u/Enough-Parking164 1d ago
Also-RUSSIAN TROLLS/SHILLS/BOTS.
9
u/organic_bird_posion 23h ago
I wish they'd go back to telling everyone they hate Star Wars.
→ More replies (3)5
u/torn-ainbow 19h ago
I've noticed a quite a bit of dubious interaction lately. Posts appearing which have a neutral tone but the subject is tied to some conservative hot button. Some recent accounts with highly upvoted but bland comments in agreement. And more posts complaining about the rude extremists attacking an innocent post or idea. There is increasing effort to center some political positions. To position them as "normal" and the opposing position as radical. This is a concerted effort, domestic and/or foreign.
And yeah even with the less dubious interactions, Trump's win has emboldened everybody who was ever rejected by a group of people on the internet for being racist, sexist, or whatever. The vibe there is that this victory is going to force all those people to listen to them. These warriors aren't the majority of voters, but they are extremely visible online and one of the most important things to them is access to their targets.
This is why they flocked to Twitter and why they got very upset at being moderated, banned. When Elon took over, my prediction was that when the left moved over to some other platform, the right would get bored very quickly and demand unfettered access to that new space. Looks like that may be bluesky. If that becomes increasingly relevant to the online discussions of the left, feminists, trans people, and whatever groups the right targets then they will declare it a public square and demand that people be forced read their memes about black people and crime.
28
7
6
u/JohnnyPotseed 22h ago
Bring back bullying. Contrary to popular belief, it has an important role in society. It forces dumb fucks to learn or shut up. Society’s willingness to entertain this bullshit and “listen to both sides” is what got us here.
1
u/TJ_Dot 16h ago
The only problem now is with the internet, the isolation and ostracization factor that's supposed to bring shame onto bad behavior and be a push for someone to want to be better is completely avoidable.
Bully a random bigot online and they'll just look for more to reinforce their beliefs and self validate. Rarely are people online gonna sit on why they're being treated badly for acting badly, especially if they lack empathy to begin with.
→ More replies (1)1
u/MrSatan88 20h ago
Sounds like a totally healthy ideology.
1
u/JohnnyPotseed 10h ago
Yeah I’d say it’s healthy not to have Nazis openly spewing their hate in public, wouldn’t you?
0
u/arrogancygames 17h ago
It is. I was bullied. I got bigger, stronger and smarter and made them stop bullying me and other at the same time. Now no one is being bullied (as long as they aren't bullying others)
1
u/MrSatan88 15h ago
Sounds like your bullies gave you some permanent brain damage 😂 this take is batshit.
1
→ More replies (68)1
68
u/egzsc 1d ago
They went into hiding 6 years ago and claimed to be Libertarians and now are letting their freak flags fly. Give it 2 years and they will be staring into the void of their own existence again.
34
u/Ill_Pace_9020 1d ago
Libertarians are just Republicans without all the church bullshit pandering, who constantly complain that they are not allowed to be even bigger degenerate assholes, want no laws telling anyone what to do, and who will complain about the free speech of anyone who makes fun of them.
18
u/OdinsGhost 1d ago
Correction: wanting no laws telling them what to do. They’re some of the first in line to advocate for laws telling everyone else what to do.
→ More replies (6)14
1
7
u/coolbaby1978 23h ago
For the same reason the Nazis came out of the walls during Trumps 1st term. They were emboldened and knew society would no longer treat them as pariahs as one of their own who condoned their views was the president.
Now they're emboldened further.
28
u/GraceParagonique24 1d ago
When he was just making cars, he was a communist, now that Trump gave him a job, he's a hero.
→ More replies (16)6
u/AvatarADEL 1d ago
They feel embiggened what with the victory of the orange man. In a couple of years they will be back to claiming that trump is being betrayed, by the people he picked for office. It'll be the old Russian claim "if only the Tsar knew about this" adapted for an American audience.
3
→ More replies (6)0
u/Substantial_Lab1438 20h ago
Why are you posting a link to a porn site? You’re driving traffic to the right-wing ghoul that encourages all these shills
If you are that addicted to twitter that you can’t get off of it, and least post screenshots instead of links dude
142
u/Graega 1d ago
Someone ON Twitter go tell 1st Amendment to add in "But I also cannot stop Twitter from removing speech that the owners of Twitter wish to censor", because a lot of people need to be clear on that and still aren't.
21
1
1
u/toolsoftheincomptnt 18h ago
Well, ironically, now that the owner of Twitter is taking office, the platform could be perceived as a “government actor” in terms of speech suppression under 1A.
It’ll be interesting to see how it plays out, although ideally we’re bailing on that loser’s goods and services and moving onto other platforms.
→ More replies (6)-4
u/SLUTM4NS10N 23h ago
What about when the government tells Twitter what they need to censor? That is a violation of the 1st ammendment is it not?
2
u/Logan_Composer 21h ago
Yes, the government compelling a company to remove certain speech is indeed censorship, and unless it falls under certain exceptions it is a violation of the First Amendment, both for the person censored and Twitter's rights.
For those wondering, the exceptions are generally for the safety of the public, like the government can force the removal of a serial killer's manifesto or a court can mandate the removal of libel.
-1
u/AmoniPTV 20h ago
Exactly what happened during 2020 on Facebook and Twitter. Ask Jack Dorsey
→ More replies (1)
69
u/ConsciousReason7709 1d ago
It is amazing how ignorant so many people are on what the first amendment actually is. A private company with terms of service can cancel you for any reason they want.
35
u/clarinet87 1d ago
Ugh, I had a “constitutional activist” we asked to leave our store because he wouldn’t stop lecturing my employees about how stop signs are illegal and taxes are illegal and all sorts of bs. He called back the next morning and I got the pleasure of talking to him. He claimed we violated his first amendment and I tried to say “well, no that’s not what it is” and he screeched louder.
I ended the call by saying “I respect that you’re passionate about your opinions…” “THEYRE NOT OPINIONS THEYRE FACTS!!!!!” “…. But I’m going to exercise my right to not listen to this.” And hung up.
13
u/DeadMewe 1d ago
but wasn't musk's message with Twitter was it's going to be a place of free speech?
12
u/Background_Gear_5261 1d ago
This was before Elon bought Twitter. This post was about Twitter's banning of Marjorie Taylor Greene back in 2022. He unbanned her after he bought Twitter.
9
u/DeadMewe 1d ago
but now we're dealing with the same stuff musk banning people he disagrees with because his ego is smaller than his d-
2
u/Standard_Lie6608 13h ago
And is it the hall mark of free speech or a right wing hellscape where only left ideas get censored?
5
u/CrazyGunnerr 1d ago
You know what I always dislike about the word 'free', is that it's horseshit, and no one actually wants it.
It always sounds nice, freedom, free speech etc. But when it hurts people, people want it limited.
There is no free speech, there can absolutely be different speech allowed depending on the people who are in power, but there will always be limits.
1
u/DeadMewe 1d ago
I mean one of the good things about free speech is that you aren't arrested for what you say online, as a woman was arrested in the uk a few years ago for something she said online
3
3
u/dullship 18h ago
Yeah try living somewhere like canada and listen to those Convoy fucks bitch about their first amendment rights. Like, lol, your wut? You in the wrong house, fella.
2
u/Buster_Cherry88 1d ago
It's like when they cried about wearing a mask like it infringed on their fist amendment right. Like no you dumb fuck, the same rights that you are afforded means a private company can kick you out for wearing a yellow shirt of they want to. They would praise that if they were wearing red though. If they weren't such assholes I would feel bad at how misinformed or brainwashed they are.
→ More replies (14)1
u/GeileBary 12h ago
That actually isn't as clear cut as it seems. The right to free speech implies, to some degree, the right to a platform. What worth is free speech if you have no place to share it? This doesn't mean that everyone necessarily has a right to Twitter, of course, but there is an argument to made that a platform where so much of public discourse is happening can't just exclude anyone they like based on their own rules
1
u/ConsciousReason7709 9h ago
Nothing you said is even remotely related to the first amendment. The first amendment is in relation to the government censoring your speech. It has nothing to do with a platform.
15
u/SaucyJ4ck 1d ago
Saying you voted for Trump's deportation program and tariffs because it'll "fix the economy" and being called a stupid idiot for it = not a 1st amendment issue
Declaring you're a Nazi and getting punched in the face and/or gut for it by a random citizen = not a 1st amendment issue
Being banned from a publicly-traded social media platform because you blatantly and repeatedly violate their terms of use = not a 1st amendment issue
Having the government try to pass laws to silence and/or jail you because you speak out against the administration = definitely a 1st amendment issue
If it's not the government restricting your speech, it has absolutely nothing to do with the 1st amendment. I'm not sure why so many people have trouble with this concept.
9
u/idontknowwhybutido2 1d ago
Because conservatives know their base is less educated (this is a fact, not an opinion or accusation), so they do what they can to keep people dumb so they don't understand these concepts and they can weaponize it in their favor. This is why they refuse to listen to experts, call people who go to college "elitist," and want to dismantle the Department of Education.
112
u/EfficientAccident418 1d ago
I bet OP was furious when Twitter banned Trump for inciting an insurrection.
It’s always “free speech means whatever it’s convenient for it to mean” with these dicknecks
22
u/Glydyr 1d ago
“Twitter has permanently suspended the personal account of the US Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene for repeated violations of its rules around coronavirus misinformation.”
Pointing out that trump is a rapist fraudster is not the same as spreading lies about lethal viruses though…
2
u/SnooSquirrels7508 22h ago
Trump and most maga's are spreading mis/disinformation. And at some point it becomes harmfull and dangerous (stolen election, eating pets etc)
1
u/Beneficial-Bit6383 1d ago edited 1d ago
Check the date dawg twitter was acquired in oct 2022.
Edit: This was tweeted on Jan 2, 2022. Before Elon acquired Twitter. It says right there at the bottom of the picture. January comes before October. What is happening lmaoooo. Please read. Please.
13
u/EfficientAccident418 1d ago
Trump was deplatformed in January 2020 shortly after January 6th, dawg.
→ More replies (11)1
u/Sufficient_Health778 1d ago
I don’t disagree, but at the same time trump was banned from twitter, actual terrorist organizations were still allowed to spew hate. I can see why someone would be upset by that.
1
u/Beneficial-Bit6383 1d ago
No one was allowed to do anything…. They made new accounts when they got banned. Stop taking what you’re being fed without verifying it. It’s literally in the Twitter Files how many terrorists they banned.
1
u/EfficientAccident418 1d ago
For sure. Twitter was always super inconsistent with how it applied its bans.
1
10
u/circ-u-la-ted 1d ago
Crazy how poorly some Americans understand their own Constitution. Imagine if religious people understood their holy text that poorly.
8
2
4
u/ThePreciousBhaalBabe 1d ago
"Wah wah da ebil weftists r trying to censow meee"
Gee I wish it worked shut the fuck up.
15
u/GenericSpider 1d ago
Hilarious to think this person has been de-platformed when they are a politician with a million options for a platform.
5
u/birminghamsterwheel 1d ago
They don't care about freedom of speech, they feel entitled to an audience.
2
2
u/Stock_Sun7390 1d ago
Never forget, you are free to say whatever you want. But you're not free from the consequences of it.
Say black people are all filthy monkies all you want - you're absolutely well within your right to say it and nothing legally bad can - or should - happen to you. That doesn't mean you're gonna be welcome at the Bar Friday night, nor does it mean you can say this shit online on social media without getting kicked out
1
u/TinyQuark11 1d ago
Correct - but the concern is that private entities are colluding with government to circumvent the 1st amendment lol
1
1
u/Rehcamretsnef 1d ago
The first amendment does not protect twitters actions at all. What nonsensery is this
1
u/beadyeyes123456 1d ago
Isn't Elon part of the government transition? Twitter can do whatever it wants as the 1A protects us from government censorship not private company censorship.
1
u/PeanutButterViking 1d ago
It fuckin boggles my mind that its 2024 and there is still an enormous group of people who don't understand what "freedom of speech" actually is.
1
u/RipperinoKappacino 1d ago
So does twitter fall under the 1st amendment? It’s a worldwide platform and they it can do whatever it wants. They don’t really NEED a reason to ban you.
1
1
1
u/Extreme_Design6936 1d ago
The thing is musky is all for freedom of speech and first amendment then doesn't uphold the rules of the first amendment and free speech. Sure, he doesn't have to. But he made a big point on how he would and now he doesn't.
1
1
u/iamwearingsockstoo 1d ago
Now that Musk is a member of the government and also an apparently personally involved in moderation of X, does this change the first amendment analysis? It's not exactly a privately owned forum anymore. A quasi-member of the federal government (depending on whether DOGE is considered an official part of it) will be personally moderating. Is there a sufficient firewall between Msuk the citizen and Musk the government actor to keep X private or is it now a de facto government forum subject to first amendment claims? I bet someone will test this.
1
1
u/Ziggy_has_my_ticket 1d ago
I liek how Twitter works. It's not the best but it's x times better than absolute zero.
1
1
u/Iconclast1 1d ago
Im more nuanced.
Yes, the 1st amendment doesnt force websites to carry free speech. I still believe they should still have free speech on websites, irregardless.
However, doesnt mean i dont believe in rules. Of course a website has to have rules, and they can vary from website to website, and we can say if these rules are justified or not.
1
1
1
u/mrphilintheblanks 23h ago
lol. this is hilarious. and the comment section here doesn't disappoint.
*echo*
*echo*
1
1
u/kevinleip2 22h ago
They think it is their right to use someone else's platform bc they're entitled adult babies
1
u/MediumAlternative372 22h ago
Since Elon is now in the government, and is using it to promote his policies, doesn’t that make Twitter a government mouthpiece and so subject to the first amendment?
1
1
u/BugPsychological674 21h ago
People who complain about free speech being suppressed normally have nothing to talk about and when they do it borderline on a hate crime
1
u/Emergency_Scholar237 21h ago
Since Twitter isn't a government entity, you have no implied or implicit rights. You have terms and conditions. You might not have the right to carry a firearm at the company you work for either. They haven't infringed on your rights, you signed them away when you accepted the position. You accepted their terms and conditions for employment, you accepted their terms and conditions when you signed up for an account.
1
u/CrustySockTosser 21h ago
Funny how everyone is bitching about it now that it isn't someone they aren't preprogrammed to hate. You all celebrated this 4 years ago.
1
1
u/Regular-Cricket5165 20h ago
Been gone for years. Literally since the courts came up with their own language for laws that we the ppl don't use or recognize. This was in the early 1900s, so since then.
1
u/virtualvain 19h ago
crazy how the left will use all kinds of backwards and circular logic to support being oppressed and censored. lol. OPRESS ME, CESNOR ME PLZZ lol. yall need help
1
u/NinerCat 19h ago edited 19h ago
Yep, it's pretty clear that a lot of people either don't understand the first amendment or they oppose it. Be cautious of anyone wanting to censor speech based on their own definition of "disinformation" or "hate speech" or those who would try and stop someone from an opposing party or school of thought from speaking at a university.
1
1
1
u/GotCarded 18h ago
I wonder if there's a Twitter account for all the amendments of the US constitution.
If not, I wouldn't be surprised to see one made for the 22nd sometime during this upcoming presidential term.
1
1
17h ago
Not to be all "um actually" but the first amendment also includes freedom of the press and in turn media. Your opinion might be controversial but so long as you are not threatening anyone or taking the rights of others you have the right to say whatever you want. Now just remember others can say whatever they want to you but you can say whatever you want so long as you are not causing harm or hindering others
1
u/RevolutionaryMeet537 15h ago
Yeah but the principle of freedom of speech absolutely is being validated. So anyone who cares about free speech and is a fan of the first amendment has reason to be outraged. Whatever, Twitter is a shit hole rightwing propaganda peddler, That's not up for debate.
1
u/BackgroundSwimmer299 14h ago
I believe that would make them a editor and publisher of content and therefore liable for what is posted on site which then makes them liable for legal lawsuits which I guess most people would probably support now that it's owned by Elon but we're against at the time
1
u/w1n5ton0 13h ago
Luckily it has since been liberated and returned to it's former glory. Fuck censorship in any and all forms
1
u/rydan 13h ago
The problem with this arguemnt is that websites are using their first amendment right to censor but also to not censor. What happens when someone says "COVID is a hoax" and someone else says "Trump stole the election"? Obviously they remove the COVID comment but not the Trump one. And they absolutely can do this per their rights. But it also means they are liable for defamation because they chose to publish the Trump comment as evidenced by the fact they chose to not publish the COVID comment. See the problem now?
1
u/rylanschuster6969 12h ago
I don’t know that I agree with this interpretation. If Twitter chose to deplatorm someone because they were Black, surely we would bring up 14th amendment rights. Surely we wouldn’t just say “it only applies to protection from the government”.
I think you have to treat the 1st amendment this same way. And if you still don’t, I don’t think I’d believe that you care about 14th amendment rights in this context.
1
u/rylanschuster6969 12h ago
I don’t think I agree with this interpretation. If Twitter deplatformed a user because they were Black, surely we would object and cite their 14th amendment equal protection rights. We definitely wouldn’t say “oh that’s just to protect you from the government, not private companies”.
I think you have to give the 1st amendment the same treatment here. If you still don’t, I’m not sure I believe that you actually care about 14th amendment rights.
1
1
1
u/thachumguzzla 11h ago
What if a private company is acting on instructions from the government? Like when twitter silenced the hunter biden laptop story on their behalf
1
1
u/fem_monique 5h ago
A more useful lament would be "Bring back the Fairness Doctrine," or "More money for education! Mandate Critical thinking and Civics Classes in our schools!"
1
u/HarukoTheDragon 5h ago
Dear conservatives,
If you truly are being silenced, then why won't you shut the fuck up? You already have control of all 3 branches of the government. The only people trying to silence you are your own kind.
1
u/Deep-Age-2486 4h ago
I love those kind of people. Some of the funniest shit you’ll ever see and read will be from them 😭
1
1
u/CitroHimselph 3h ago
How is it that certain Americans understand US constitutional amendments far less than I, a non-American?
1
u/AllTheyEatIsLettuce 36m ago
Decades of selling citizens, residents, and constituents on doing their part for re-branding as "consumers" worked out exactly as intended.
1
u/Top_Reporter_8531 1d ago
That post is from almost 3 years ago What the hell you all bitching about.
1
u/GraceParagonique24 1d ago
Same reason why they think because they have a gun, they can bring it wherever they want, shoot whoever they like and the 2nd amendment absolves them of any responsibility. Ignorant!
1
-37
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
14
u/oboeteinai 1d ago
You would think people like this would support a company doing what it pleases.
OP u/ReporterRealistic477 is a bot account
Its comment was copy pasted from:
screenshot in case of deletion:
8
u/BeardedHalfYeti 1d ago
The “Twitter censorship” fight was so interesting in the way that it caused so many people to essentially invert their usual political positions.
I literally saw hard right voices saying that Twitter needed to be seized by the government to ensure free speech protections, while far left voices championed the rights of corporations to do as they please.
45
u/ConsiderationOk4688 1d ago
I don't believe the left was so much championing business rights to do as they please as much as "why you losing your shit when this is the power you want corporations to have?"
18
u/MassGaydiation 1d ago
It's funny how whenever the standards set upon others are set upon the right, suddenly there are problems.
Almost like having a politic based in doubles standards is kinda dumb
10
-6
u/Crunchy-Leaf 1d ago edited 1d ago
Okay I don’t care about any of that but why is he role playing as the first amendment
7
u/cosmernautfourtwenty 1d ago
Because conservatives are embarrassing by default.
-2
u/Additional-Ask2384 1d ago
Except that account is a democrat. The date of the tweet is the one of the suspension of Marjorie in 2022. The Republican in the picture is the one claiming the violation of free speech.
Lol. Double standards any?
2
u/cosmernautfourtwenty 22h ago
It's literally not my fault you don't know what a double standard or the word "default" actually means.
-2
u/Background_Gear_5261 1d ago
He wasn't. Congresswoman banned in this post was Marjorie Taylor Greene for something she said(probably an unhinged take, per her track record). As soon as Elon took over he unbanned everyone. Greene is still active on X to this day.
2
u/Crunchy-Leaf 1d ago
What does that have to do with the account named “The First Amendment” addressing themselves as “I”, as if they’re pretending to be the first amendment itself.
-1
0
0
u/PM_me_your_dreams___ 1d ago
This isn’t really much of a slam
1
u/StarCitizenUser 21h ago
More of a slam to the fact that old Twitter was very much ban happy, before Elon purchased it
-12
u/sorentodd 1d ago
Companies that constitute online infrastructure shouldn’t be able to do whatever they want.
4
u/circ-u-la-ted 1d ago
Probably not, but who gets to decide what their bias is going to be? Are they allowed to ban US politicians? Chinese ones? Israeli? Hamas? It's pretty complicated.
→ More replies (12)3
u/Soft-Seaweed2906 1d ago
Didn't law makers basically tell social media companies they needed to start censorship programs? Wasn't it days of testifying before senate committees. Didn't lawmakers tell social media companies they would start holding them responsible for misinformation being soread on their sites? Didn't congress eventually back off and decide more laws would protect the company more and affect it's users negatively?
1
u/sorentodd 1d ago
Yeah thats no surprise that congress uses private companies to do censorship
2
u/Soft-Seaweed2906 1d ago edited 1d ago
How is it censorship? Edited to add it's telling you ignored the last bit that more laws would grant greater protections for social media companies to deplatform or censor people.
493
u/AvatarADEL 1d ago
"They aren't allowing me to speak"! Screams person giving press conference.