politics

Can someone who values free speech explain to me how this isn't an American citizen being coerced into compelled speech by the Federal government in direct defiance of the First amendment?

Coinbase employee (Investigatooor), personal account. Onchain is the future.

I like politics, I approach it as a hobby. I also like my country and my Constitution, and when the President and his admin are doing unprecedented things in defiance of the Constitution I like to discuss it on the politics channel on Farcaster. You don't follow me, but you're welcome to mute me if this bothers you.

you're just a hater of anything trump does, do you have any hobbies besides crying?

/monad ecosystem growth | ex telco.in & everwave.xyz founder | /music moderator | writing on web3 & culture https://paragraph.xyz/@alixkun.eth

I never said free speech was limitless. 

There are clear Supreme Court cases addressing falsity and parody. 

“Deepfake” is an ambiguous term and will likely be struck down by the court. California doesn’t get to decide how the 1st Amendment works. That’s not how our legal system is set up.

This guy had strong opinions when Newsom was trying to limit speech.  Maybe he has thoughts

This guy had strong opinions when Newsom was trying to limit speech.  Maybe he has thoughts https://warpcast.com/dwr.eth/0x734bf8b7

It’s a governor leading his people against our president.  Would you rather him be jailed?

Owner of /routinehub empowering devs to code from their mobile phone, starting w/ Shortcuts. Formerly: AMZN AI, META, Deadmau5.

I don't disagree, I think that would be a better phrasing if I was purely interested in open discussion. 

But my primary goal is pointing out what I observe to be first amendment abuse by the president, with a secondary goal of discussion. I think the online information environment is so slanted in favor of Trump currently that by leaving the question open in some ways normalizes the situation and creates an assumption in the reader's mind that the perspective that this isn't a 1a violation has reasonable standing. So phrasing it this way is sort of intentionally provocative even if there's less discussion.

With ❤️: I get what you’re trying to do, but I think the way your question is worded might not lead to a fair, open conversation. It kinda leans in a certain direction with the way it’s framed and the words chosen.

Variation on your Q:

“What are the First Amendment implications in this situation? Could it be considered compelled speech? Why or why not?”

That way, it’s more open-ended, invites different ideas without pushing toward one answer.