[flagged]
What were those vote totals, again?
Executive actions target law firms for legal challenges, not their speech. self-censorship is speculative, not a free speech violation.
> Critics who once held security clearances or security details have them removed.
Removing clearances is legal government discretion, not a free speech issue. they’re privileges, not rights.
> Organizations fearful of threats from the President preemptively erase ideas, or silence dissenting voices.
Private organizations choosing to self-censor isn’t government coercion. it’s an indirect effect, not oppression, and could be simply reflecting a shift in cultural values that some disagree with.
> The President has suggested that critics are supporters of terrorism, using vague language that allows him to threaten nonprofits, or promise to deport protest leaders, including green card holders.
No evidence shows mass deportations or nonprofit crackdowns for speech.
> Words and ideas are banned. Censors rifle their way through government documents and websites to remove them. Federal spaces, like schools on military bases, are purged of books that even mildly hint at the idea that diversity is a good thing.
Government controls its own messaging legally. this isn’t censorship of private speech.
> Funding of research ideas is being taken away from research experts and handed to political appointees who are defunding the ideas they dislike. Campus officials are trying to decide how to respond to government orders to remove ideas.
Funding shifts are policy choices, not speech bans. campuses adapt voluntarily to continue receiving funding from taxpayers. Exactly how democracy should work.
> The President has pardoned militant supporters who engaged in violence to try to reverse the outcome of a previous election, and demoted officials who investigated those supporters.
Pardons and personnel decisions are legal powers, they’re controversial but not free speech oppression.
>The President and the richest man in the world routinely make wildly dishonest claims about the government they are running. Critics of the employees of the richest man in the world can expect to be threatened with prosecution from the federal government.
Dishonest claims are free speech, there is no evidence which ties prosecution threats to criticism.
> Elected officials are not exempt from such threats. The President’s opponents face threat of investigation, while even his supporters fear to disagree with him. They also fear criticizing the richest man in the world, even though his actions in destroying much of the government are widely unpopular.
Political pressure isn’t a free speech violation and fear of disagreement is subjective.
> The work of the richest man in the world is exempted from open records laws. We really don’t know what he is doing, and members of Congress refuse to ask him in public.
Records exemptions are legal so this is a transparency issue, not speech suppression.
> Public employees are illegally purged if they are viewed as disloyal to the new regime. This includes top-ranking officers in the military, and the lawyers in government who set the boundaries for what a President can do.
Personnel decisions are executive authority and free speech violations need specific proof of which there isn’t any.
> Some of those are purged because of their gender identity, or because they are associated with ideas now deemed unfashionable, or even for going to a meeting where those ideas are discussed. The government has created tip lines to help identify the disfavored.
Policy changes on identity are legal and tip lines target violations, not ideas.
> Individual journalists whose job it is to hold the President accountable know that they will face a torrent of abuse if they are critical. The richest man in the world might call for a journalist to be fired, falsely accuse media organizations of secretly being paid by shadowy pro-government forces, or sue them to drain resources.
Musk’s private actions aren’t government censorship, and event bans are discretionary, not oppressive. The evidence is actually that news organizations have been being paid by deep state conspiracies.
> Some media companies find excuses to bribe the President on the flimsiest of pretexts, humoring his demands for massive financial compensation when faced with normal journalistic practice, because their corporate owners fear the President’s retribution.
No evidence supports this. it’s an unsubstantiated claim.
It’s all hysterical nonsense. Sorry.
People who claim to love democracy don’t really when it results in polices and views they disagree with.