Every time someone loses a job over something they said online, the internet fills up with tears and hashtags. Boo-hoo, the mob didn’t like your tweet. But here’s the cold truth: that’s nothing compared to the people who’ve lost their lives for speaking their minds.
What the First Amendment Actually Says
The First Amendment is not complicated. It says:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Key phrase: shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.
Abridging means reducing, cutting back, trimming down.
Freedom means just that—freedom. Not a privilege. Not a “civil liberty” that can be bartered away.
This isn’t up for debate. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Not Congress. Not the President. Not even the Supreme Court with its robed referees.
Hate Speech? That’s a Scam
There is no such thing as “hate speech” in U.S. law. That’s just speech someone happens to hate. And the Constitution doesn’t give a damn about your feelings. It protects your right to open your mouth whether you’re spouting poetry, profanity, or something deeply unpopular.
The Game of Implied Consent
Here’s where the real danger lives. Every time people cheer when someone is deplatformed, canceled, or punished for “bad” speech, they hand lawmakers the excuse to go further. That’s implied consent. You’ve told the government, “Go ahead, limit speech when it makes me uncomfortable.”
But ask yourself: who gave you the authority to bargain away my rights? Who told you that your fragile ego outranks the supreme law of the land? Because it sure as hell wasn’t me.
The Slippery Slope Isn’t Imaginary
Losing your job for saying something unpopular is already bad enough. But once governments normalize punishing speech, history shows us what comes next. It’s not jobs that disappear. It’s lives.
Final Word
You don’t have to like what people say. You don’t even have to listen. But the second you start deciding which words deserve freedom and which don’t, you’re not defending democracy—you’re digging its grave.
For context the following was my original rant:
“First Amendment to the US Constitution—“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
{Abridging refers to the act of reducing or limiting certain rights or privileges, often in a legal context, such as abridging the right to free speech or other civil liberties. It involves making a restriction that diminishes the scope or extent of those rights.}
A few things that need clearing up, although the damage is already done thanks to you dimwits.
Congress, the Supreme Court nor the President have the Constitutional Authority to abridge the freedom of speech. Take care to notice it says freedom, meaning it isn’t a civil liberty, it isn’t and never has been up for debate and just because the Supreme Court says it’s so doesn’t make it so. The US Constitution is the Supreme Law of this land, not the Supreme Court.
There’s no such thing as “hate” speech only speech that you “hate”. It would not make a bit of difference if such a thing were in existence, the US Constitution states, in plan English, Congress shall make NO law ABRIDGING the FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
You people that participate in this type of nonsense and openly brag about it are giving law makers and every other “but my feelings bro” reject the “implied consent” to take away from every American citizen’s Constitutional protected freedoms/rights. Now on that note, who the fuck gave you the authority or permission to speak on my behalf and give the government such “implied” consent? I didn’t and I never will.”
The following is ChatGPT5 remarks:
That image is basically a blunt reminder that whining about job loss for saying dumb stuff online pales in comparison to people who’ve literally died for exercising speech. The First Amendment isn’t a “customer service policy” for private companies; it’s a restriction on government power. Congress can’t pass laws limiting speech. That’s the deal. But your boss firing you for mouthing off? That’s not Uncle Sam gagging you—that’s capitalism serving you a pink slip with a side of irony.
Here’s where people get tangled:
- “Congress shall make no law…” means the government can’t criminalize you for speech, no matter how offensive, unless it crosses very narrow lines (incitement, true threats, etc.).
- Abridging = shrinking. The government doesn’t get to slice away chunks of that freedom just because it’s inconvenient.
- No such thing as “hate speech” in U.S. law. It’s just speech someone hates. The term is political, not constitutional.
Where the rant has teeth is in the “implied consent” bit. When people cheer on deplatforming, canceling, or laws that flirt with speech restrictions, they’re basically handing lawmakers moral permission to encroach. The Constitution says no abridging, but if the culture keeps demanding the government “do something” every time someone is offended, you eventually get legislators who try. And the Supreme Court—contrary to popular belief—isn’t the supreme law; the Constitution is. The Court interprets, but it doesn’t get to rewrite plain English.
So yeah, it’s not that you have a “right” to keep your job after saying something dumb on Twitter. You don’t. But the bigger picture—the one that should keep people awake at night—is that once you normalize punishing speech socially and economically, it’s a short hop to government punishment. And when governments punish speech, history shows it isn’t jobs that get lost. It’s lives.