> The California Coastal Commission on Thursday rejected the Air Force’s plan to give SpaceX permission to launch up to 50 rockets a year from Vandenberg Air Force Base in Santa Barbara County.
> “Elon Musk is hopping about the country, spewing and tweeting political falsehoods and attacking FEMA while claiming his desire to help the hurricane victims with free Starlink access to the internet,” Commissioner Gretchen Newsom said at the meeting in San Diego.
> “I really appreciate the work of the Space Force,” said Commission Chair Caryl Hart. “But here we’re dealing with a company, the head of which has aggressively injected himself into the presidential race and he’s managed a company in a way that was just described by Commissioner Newsom that I find to be very disturbing.”
This quote you're mindlessly parroting is about private consequences (like boycotts). If the government could punish you for your speech, it wouldn't be free speech.
"You are free to speak freely, but me as a government bureaucrat can take a hammer and crush your knees to a pulp. Look you are free to speak freely but you are not free of the consequences"
I'm sure your civics teacher would be proud of you.
> Constitution gives you the rights for these speech. Doesn’t make you immune to the consequences of these speech.
That’s literally what it does. It makes you immune to the consequences of speech from the state. If government can punish you for speech then you don’t really have that right, do you? This goes really for all free speech arguments - saying free speech doesn’t mean no consequences is nonsensical, since that’s what is necessary for someone to have the freedom to speak. In the case of governmental bureaucrats, it is definitely unconstitutional. Not that this would stop California, as we’ve seen in repeated violations of the second amendment.
> makes you immune to the consequences of speech from the state
Not all consequences, technically speaking. USSC has already carved out exceptions to that rule in various cases.
This said, you're correct that the quote about "not free from consequences" applies to private individuals and businesses but not to the State (specifically because of the First Amendment).
What’s disturbing is the blatant abuse by these bureaucrats to punish people for constitutionally protected free speech.
Constitution gives you the rights for these speech. Doesn’t make you immune to the consequences of these speech.
This quote you're mindlessly parroting is about private consequences (like boycotts). If the government could punish you for your speech, it wouldn't be free speech.
Wow listen to yourselves.
"You are free to speak freely, but me as a government bureaucrat can take a hammer and crush your knees to a pulp. Look you are free to speak freely but you are not free of the consequences"
I'm sure your civics teacher would be proud of you.
> Constitution gives you the rights for these speech. Doesn’t make you immune to the consequences of these speech.
That’s literally what it does. It makes you immune to the consequences of speech from the state. If government can punish you for speech then you don’t really have that right, do you? This goes really for all free speech arguments - saying free speech doesn’t mean no consequences is nonsensical, since that’s what is necessary for someone to have the freedom to speak. In the case of governmental bureaucrats, it is definitely unconstitutional. Not that this would stop California, as we’ve seen in repeated violations of the second amendment.
> makes you immune to the consequences of speech from the state
Not all consequences, technically speaking. USSC has already carved out exceptions to that rule in various cases.
This said, you're correct that the quote about "not free from consequences" applies to private individuals and businesses but not to the State (specifically because of the First Amendment).
[dead]
If you’ve got a reputation as a liar then don’t be surprised when people don’t wanna work with you.
[dead]
[flagged]