• acargitz@lemmy.caOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Don’t be dense, read the article. The story is not about legality or free speech absolutism. It is about how the window of acceptable political speech in what is considered mainstream has narrowed to a stifling degree to exclude very reasonable milquetoast peacenik sentiments.

    • rbesfe@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      the story is not about legality

      Then it shouldn’t use the words “free speech” in the headline. Free speech is very much a legal term.

      • acargitz@lemmy.caOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        So is theft and murder and inheritance. We use legal terms in regular parlance all the time.

        • rbesfe@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Ok, and? Regular parlance can be about legal implications too, I’ve never heard the words “free speech” used in a context with no connection to their legal meaning. Do you have a counter example?

          • frostbiker@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’ve never heard the words “free speech” used in a context with no connection to their legal meaning. Do you have a counter example?

            Yes. The very article in this post.