this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2025
2141 points (100.0% liked)

Science Memes

14543 readers
757 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
2141
fuck this (mander.xyz)
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
660 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Friendly reminder: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/yes-science-is-political/

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 49 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Either you have free speech or you don’t

Lots of countries have free speech with limits on it. It's not uncommon and doesn't mean Citizens don't have freedom of speech.

For example:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gmiKenqLVAU

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago (6 children)

If it has a limit, it’s not free

If I can’t do a Nazi salute, then I can’t say “I want to shoot Donald Trump in the face”

[–] [email protected] 59 points 2 months ago (1 children)

If it has a limit, it’s not free

"Free bread sticks"

"I'll take 100"

"Um... No. You can't have that many."

"iF tHeRe'S a LiMiT iT's NoT fReE!"

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Don’t be pedantic. A limit would be “free breadsticks only if you decide to pray to our god in front of us.”

If you say unlimited and then put a limit on it, that is illegal, as Verizon and AT&T found out in court

[–] [email protected] 25 points 2 months ago (1 children)

If you say unlimited and then put a limit on it

When did the American Constitution promise "Unlimited Speech"?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It doesn’t. It says free, meaning unencumbered. The breadstick analogy was for unlimited not free so it was disingenuous and I was countering it.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 months ago

The breadstick analogy was for unlimited not free

It was both. They were advertised as free, they are free, but there are limits despite them being free

Nothing free is unlimited.

Alternatively Americans have no freedoms at all because they all have limits.

Freedom of Travel? You can't walk through a military base.

Freedom of Religion? No one is going to recognize your Jedi holy day. (Not to mention the government not recognizing the religious right to an abortion from Jews or TST.)

Freedom of commerce? You're not allowed to purchase heroin or import things from Cuba.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

If it has a limit, it’s not free

Don’t be pedantic

Bruh... your pedantry started this

[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Society and laws are at the mercy of those who are in control. Right now in the US it is the Trump administration, but I remember Barack Obama saying, “I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone,” emphasizing his ability to take executive action without waiting for Congress to push his agenda forward.

That’s not freedom.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 months ago (1 children)

So should there be any penalty for lying under oath?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

No, because it is unconstitutional to put someone under oath

By definition, it means a solemn promise that is beholden to a deity therefore it is illegitimate in court and law by the First Amendment.

You probably also think it should not be legal to kill people that break into your house to steal your TV.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 2 months ago

Fair enough. I think the discussion ends there; I cannot use reason to dissuade you from a position that you clearly did not use reason to get yourself into.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Scream "Fire" at a theater. Obviously you cannot.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The phrase “shouting fire in a crowded theater” is outdated and legally irrelevant to modern free speech discussions. Its origin from Schenck v. United States (1919) was overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), which set a much higher standard for restricting speech. Modern First Amendment doctrine protects almost all speech unless it directly incites imminent violence or crime.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal. (Karl Popper)