![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/8f2046ae-5d2e-495f-b467-f7b14ccb4152.png)
Love your optimism
Love your optimism
You’re right. I was being very Ameri-centric. I subconsciously interchange free speech and the first amendment even though they are not equal.
I do believe that individuals and private institutions should have this right to react though. I don’t agree with how it was used in this situation, but I absolutely believe the hospital should have the right to terminate someone based on the opinions they openly share.
If this same employee was sharing an anti-vax opinion I would want the hospital to be able to remove them from the role.
That is not what free speech means.
Free speech means the government cannot prohibit free speech. A private institution can take any lawful action they want in retaliation/reaction.
I agree that it really sucks that saying something true can get you fired, but this isn’t an infringement of the first amendment.
The interesting thing about the court is their power comes from our belief in their legitimacy. They don’t have any repercussions if the executive and legislature completely ignores their rulings.
It’s a double edged sword. If they allow this to happen, democracy crumbles under a new admin. If they do anything to deter authoritarians getting into power is technically anti-democratic too.
Either this admin undermines the belief in democracy by stopping an authoritarian administration to participate in elections or they allow the authoritarians to run and hope the electorate aren’t complete idiots (in a voting system rigged towards the authoritarians via the electoral college).
Easy, kings side bishop red carpet promenade
I get the sentiment, but this is a pretty strawman argument.
But we can’t get a database for firearms?
Yay! We get to rename the drink “Irish Car Bomb” to “MAGA Tantrum”. At least something good came out of all this.
Personally I think the biggest hurdle will be moderation and defederation as it pertains to the first amendment. I believe there was already a supreme Court case where blocking a user on Twitter (from an official govt account) was deemed unconstitutional. This precedent might mean a govt instance is not allowed to defederate with any other server unless they defederate with all(?) This is pure speculation on my part, but I can guarantee it would go to the courts.
Looks like forced perspective. I think the hawk isn’t looking at the little bird, but from our angle it looks like they’re face to face, so we assume they are much closer than they are.