[Official] Censorship from governmental actors thread

Sure, one would behave the same way in China, Saudi Arabia, or Russia, I get it.

 

That is the rub though - before we even get to the point of deciding whether they can or should make anti-American statements --- is making comments about Charlie Kirk? There are at least as many Americans that did not like Charlie Kirk's views on some important topics.

It feels like the point of all of this is for the ruling party to muffle any and all criticism of their agenda at all costs and that is VERY dangerous for this country long term... as what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

For sure.
I have stayed away from anything Charlie Kirk. Never knew much of him until his fatal ending.
millions of people die every day in this country, as some pointed out there was a mass shooting on the same day he met his end, but he dominated the news cycle, and we did not hear much of that.

I get that he is a polarizing individual from what some say, but I find it hard to feel any worse for him or his followers than I do the 5 people that died in my town two weeks ago in a house fire.

no one death is more important than any other non-natural death. some may be more polarizing but no more important.
I suspect unless it's something like 9-11 which did change the course of this country's history.

So back to my original point. If you do not think your digital footprint is being followed up on by big brother, you are sadly mistaken.
Anyone on a work visa should be acutely aware of this the moment they touch American soil.
sucks that you come to the country of free speech, but you can't use it unless you are a "Native"

 

I like how you put that in quote. WHO gets freedom of speech (and many other basic rights) is already trending toward subjective WHO (as in, the gov now wants to decide who deserves them and is already doing so). Certain Citizens (specifically, if you look like, speak like, or act like Mexican) have already loss their right to protection from unreasonble stop. This is fittingly known as the "Kavanaugh stop".

The lesson still not learned: giving up rights just because it doesn’t affect you yet is only waiting for the day it does.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/09/justice-brett-kavanaugh-and-racial-proxies/

 

I agree with all of this.

 

No biggie just the FCC chair telling a network they should fire a host

 

It's just a retweet, it could mean anything. Don't have derangement syndrome.

 

"Its just a retweet" lol quit trolling. A re-tweet is an offical announcement. Go read this thread to see what the MAGATS claimed was censorship under Biden

 

Marco Rubio is using real censorship to fight fake censorship
In the name of protecting free speech, the U.S. government just banned five Europeans from entering the country — because it doesn’t like their speech.

https://www.ms.now/opinion/marco-rubio-imran-ahmed-thierry-breton-censorship

The U.S. government just banned five people from entering the country because it doesn’t like their speech. This ban, according to the State Department, is necessary to protect free speech.

If that sounds insane to you, congratulations on your reading comprehension.

...

I’ve been a longtime critic of the EU’s Digital Services Act — a sweeping attempt to regulate social media that relies on vague definitions and subjective determinations. I’ve also specifically called out both Breton for trying to twist the DSA to claim authority over platform speech he never had, and Ahmed for producing shoddy research that overstates social media risks. But the U.S. government is now punishing them for their speech, which is precisely the kind of government suppression of speech that the First Amendment exists to prevent.

The most instructive case here is Breton himself. He did, in fact, try to abuse the DSA to suppress speech. In August 2024, he sent Elon Musk a threatening letter suggesting that Musk’s planned livestreamed interview with then-candidate Donald Trump could violate the DSA. It was a blatant attempt at censorship.

And here’s what happened: The EU rejected him. Completely. EU officials went on record condemning the letter, his fellow commissioners distanced themselves from his threats, and within weeks he resigned to avoid being fired. As EU free speech experts noted in a recent open letter: “Politically, the EU’s checks and balances worked.”

The U.S. government’s response to this? Ban him from the country for trying to suppress speech. Never mind that he was already punished for it. Never mind that the abuse was prevented. Never mind that the system self-corrected. The State Department wants to punish him again — for his speech.

The justification for all this is even worse. Under Secretary Sarah Rogers claims these five Europeans engaged in “Murthy-style speech suppression.”

Rogers is referring to the Murthy v. Missouri case mentioned above, where two states and a collection of angry social media influencers sued the Biden administration, claiming social media platforms censored content at the government’s direction. The Supreme Court rejected those claims 6-3, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s opinion finding the plaintiffs had no standing because there was no evidence the government suppressed anyone’s speech. The platforms, Barrett noted, were simply enforcing their own rules.

Even worse, in a damning footnote, Justice Barrett highlighted that the lower court’s finding that there was censorship was based on a “clearly erroneous” reading of the evidence.

So the State Department is citing a case that disproved government censorship as evidence of government censorship. That’s not even creative lying — it’s just citing your own loss as precedent.

Besides Breton, none of the other four people being sanctioned even held government positions that would allow them to suppress speech.

So here’s where we are: The U.S. government is blocking people from entering the country because those people advocated for content moderation policies the government doesn’t like. It’s defending this by citing a Supreme Court case that rejected claims of government censorship. And it’s doing this in the name of protecting free speech.

The only actual government suppression of speech here is coming from Marco Rubio’s State Department. Everything else — all the censorship they claim to be fighting — is either private companies making their own decisions, or has already been rejected and punished by the systems it supposedly threatened.

If you want to be vigilant against government suppression of speech, you don’t ban people from your country for their opinions about content moderation. You especially don’t do it while pretending you’re the one protecting free speech

 

That's a garbage take. The European Union is trying to force censorship onto the American people by attacking American social media platforms.

 

The author of that opinion piece is on the board of Bluesky, which is infamous for banning people with non-leftist opinions.

 

Have you read the article?

The most instructive case here is Breton himself. He did, in fact, try to abuse the DSA to suppress speech. In August 2024, he sent Elon Musk a threatening letter suggesting that Musk’s planned livestreamed interview with then-candidate Donald Trump could violate the DSA. It was a blatant attempt at censorship.

And here’s what happened: The EU rejected him. Completely. EU officials went on record condemning the letter, his fellow commissioners distanced themselves from his threats, and within weeks he resigned to avoid being fired. As EU free speech experts noted in a recent open letter: “Politically, the EU’s checks and balances worked.”

Besides Breton, none of the other four people being sanctioned even held government positions that would allow them to suppress speech.

 

@K9Texan imagine crying about censorship at a time the Trump admin is infringing on every civil liberty we have.

No dumbass opeds from the MAGA boomer who started the thread @Os Trigonum