Free speech is the FIRST Amendment for good reason. Without it, we’re not really free. In Britain, police arrest hundreds of people a week for things they say online. Here, Democrats and Republicans say contradictory things about free speech.

What's remarkable is the EU's response to Americans complaining about the censorship in the EU is to claim that they are the free speech absolutist, not us. Up is down and left is right.

The drafters actually intended it to be the THIRD amendment. But the first two didn’t get ratified.

I agree John. My question is Shouldn’t the government be held accountable when it used media as a propaganda machine? Most secure elections ever. The jab is safe and effective MAGA people are Nazis Climate change will end the world in 12 years Where’s the accountability?

X still censor people for calling someone a R*tard

Even X isn’t free speech. Stop saying we have it. We don’t.

Yes. And the Second Amendment in there to protect it (& other "inalienable" rights).

The video from Britain shows why the USA put the 2nd Amendment right after the 1st. Those officers would be “regulated” by arms if needed.

There is no comparison when it comes to reporting by the media. Fox eventually reported on the fraud going on in Minnesota, but every other MSM outlet has been silent. Hardly a fair comparison.

Don't confuse free speech with libel or slander. They are not the same. Expressing an opinion which others find distasteful is protected while lying about someone or cutting and pasting their words to change the speaker's meaning, is not. It's not that complicated John.

It’s happened here.

This story is comparing apples and oranges...

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." - George Washington "Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom - and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech." - Benjamin Franklin

Look how many police! They must be all caught up on the rape/stabbing investigations.

And we have the 2nd Ammendment to back up and solidify the 1st

These statistics in Great written that British police arrest hundreds of people a week for what they say online can mean only one thing: the British people are no longer free to express themselves and think for themselves. This means Britain is no longer a free nation of free people. Hard to believe. The British invented freedom in the modern world, most particularly freedom of expression. That’s where Shakespeare came from. It changed the world.

They scream "free speech" when it's their megaphone, then clutch pearls and demand censorship the second someone disagrees. Stossel exposes the grift: principles bend when power's at stake. Reality check—consistency is for suckers in this game.

Difference is, Marxist democrats actually censored and prosecuted Free Speech, the Republicans have never followed through on their threats.

True. Though technically, originally, it was the THIRD amendment until the first two proposed amendments were rejected. From search: Original Proposed Amendments In 1789, Congress proposed 12 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. However, only 10 were ratified and became known as the Bill of Rights. The first two proposed amendments did not receive enough support from the states. First Proposed Amendment •Content: This amendment aimed to regulate the size of the House of Representatives. It stated that there should be one representative for every 30,000 people until the number of representatives reached 100. After that, the ratio would change to one representative for every 40,000 people until the total reached 200. •Outcome: It fell short of ratification by just one state. If it had passed, the U.S. could have had over 6,000 representatives today instead of the current 435. Second Proposed Amendment •Content: This amendment sought to prevent Congress from changing its own pay during its current session. Any pay increase would only take effect after the next election of the House of Representatives. •Outcome: Like the first, it did not gain enough support from the states. However, this amendment was eventually ratified in 1992 as the 27th Amendment, after being dormant for over 200 years. These two amendments reflect early attempts to address representation and congressional accountability in the U.S. government.

Both parties here are about to endorse that as well

“Without it, we’re not really free.” Missing the point entirely — we are not really free with 1A, and for good reasons. Free speech is the mechanism gov needs to access the distributed intelligence of the nation. Without it, self-correction is impossible. That’s the key to 1A.

Liberals have never believed in free speech. It's against their "principles."

@MarkRPellegrino Power corrupts

Oh great, another "freedom is cool" take from the guy who's probably never faced a Twitter ban. 😂 In America, free speech is under siege by the leftist mob who want to control the narrative. You think we're free? Look at the censorship!

England may be the only country in the world where "inciting" violence gets prosecuted while violence itself gets ignored. And they're even proud of it.

Australia says "hold my beer"

I stick with real free speech boards and platforms that don't censor words like Minds or 4chan. If Elon wants real free speech the dude has to grow a back bone man and stop being fucking bullied these laws really shouldn't concern our country our founding fathers will be pissed.

It is free speach if derived from genuine belief supported by a minimal framework of proveable facts n reasoning. Lacking sensible thought is babble. Deliberately twisting facts r reasoning to misinform r deceive others into lies, if proven and or from authority, CRIMINAL.

Love most of your content but you stumbled on this one. The Trump admin’s position on this issue centered on use of the “Public Airwaves”, which are granted to the targeted entities that are failing in their license required responsibility to provide fair and balanced content (among other limitations they agreed to when they accepted those licenses). If they want to step outside those requirements they are free to surrender those licenses. This is not a free speech debate, it is a contractual debate.

Is there a difference between threatening actions and just going ahead and punish people without due justice?