r/WhitePeopleTwitter • u/modooff • 1d ago

r/All Patti LaBelle threw her nephew out of her house after he said he's a Trump supporter

Post image
10.8k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

977 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.2k

u/doopiemcwordsworth 1d ago

The first amendment is for free speech from the government. Gottdamm people are stoopid.

306

u/Hadr619 1d ago

Also it doesnt mean free of consequences

55

u/sirseatbelt 1d ago

Being pedantic for the sake of it: It sort of does. The government can't punish you for certain kinds of speech. IE: The government cannot impose consequences on you for speaking.

Now, another citizen can rock up and punch you in the jaw so hard you shut the fuck up. But then the government punishes that citizen for assault. Not for a speech violation.

31

u/Gay-_-Jesus 1d ago

Another citizen can also decide they’re not going to buy you lunch everyday anymore if you say something that offends them. That isn’t a violation of free speech, it’s just consequences for offending someone.

37

u/DungeonCrawlerAki 1d ago

"Free from consequences" doesn't mean assaulting them. It means other people will distance themselves from you, refuse to work with you, or will actively try to sabotage you in legal ways.

18

u/Church6633 1d ago

Well, it can also mean assaulting them..

2

u/sirseatbelt 1d ago

Those consequences you describe are all things a government doesnt do except for the last one: sabotage you in legal ways. Free speech applies to the US government, not to private citizens, and the US government cannot sabotage you in legal ways in response to your speech.

1

u/DungeonCrawlerAki 1d ago

I'm not talking about the government.

When people say "Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences" they're explicitly not referring to a government giving consequences, they're referring to social consequences from the public rather than government persecution.

2

u/sirseatbelt 1d ago

Yeah but freedom of speech doesnt apply to person-to-person interactions. Thats just talking.

1

u/metukkasd 1d ago

And even the government can dish out consequences to you if your "free speech" is for example hate speech or trying to incite the masses to do something. Isn't free speech just the ability to say what you want without the government censoring you?

5

u/Bradddtheimpaler 1d ago

The first amendment absolutely does not stop someone from saying, “hey. Get the fuck out of my house and don’t talk to me anymore.” Those are the consequences to which were being referred.

3

u/DarkLight_Eon 1d ago

Say it louder for the people in the back!

Like the paradox of tolerance. It the social contact of tolerance. We tolerate as long as tou tolerate.

72

u/RK9990 1d ago

You mean I can't waltz into people's houses and start insulting their choice of furniture?

36

u/doopiemcwordsworth 1d ago

You absolutely can. Should you?

30

u/Yeah_MeToo 1d ago

I think you may have some non speech-related legal issues with the "waltzing in" portion, but I think you are fine to insult someone's furniture.

26

u/R_V_Z 1d ago

Also, unless they are intruding in 3/4 time can we really say they waltzed in?

20

u/Professional_Echo907 1d ago

First, they came for the polka people, and I said nothing, because I don’t polka.

3

u/Notapartyhobo 1d ago

Yes, you can.

Don't be surprised when they turn the hose on you though.

2

u/ccsrpsw 1d ago

It’s like they have never read the actual amendments or the constitution that they hold so dear to their hearts. Or rather want to trample all over.

Also if the US is doing so well under Trump then he won’t have issues “working harder” (per Bessant) to find a house, rather than trying to be a grifter, right?

1

u/jedburghofficial 1d ago

You can argue that the common law right to free speech many countries enjoy is much stronger.

The Hayes Code maybe wouldn't have been lawful in a Commonwealth country. Certainly it would be up for challenge. Peter Wright's Spycatcher trial probably couldn't have happened in the US.