You are not wrong. The Supreme Court finding presidential immunity and then allowing an insurrectionist to run in contravention of the 14th amendment seems to have finally put the old document to rest.
Comment on fuck this asshole
BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world 3 months ago
“…illegal protest…”?
Oh right, the US Constitution doesn’t exist any more.
YtA4QCam2A9j7EfTgHrH@infosec.pub 3 months ago
treadful@lemmy.zip 3 months ago
We live according to royal decree now.
aeternum@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 months ago
now you’re catching on! You’ll be head of a department in no time under drumpf’s regime!
TheRedSpade@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Correct
farngis_mcgiles@sh.itjust.works 3 months ago
lol it never has the united states has a long history of killing, maiming, and imprisoning protestors
Ziglin@lemmy.world 3 months ago
I mean just to be fair isn’t it illegal to have a huge protest without informing the authorities first? Also violent protests would be illegal too, right?
These assumptions are based on similar laws from other countries. But I don’t really believe Trump is talking about those protests or just planning to forbid them from getting permission to happen.
seejur@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Next time an american speaks about “muh first amendment”, “USA only free speech country in the world” bullshit, show them this
MisanthropiCynic@lemm.ee 3 months ago
The problem is it cuts both ways. The Democrats saying they want hate speech to not be protected and Nazi propaganda to be censored is just the flipside of the same coin.
Either you have free speech or you don’t
CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 3 months ago
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:
m.youtube.com/watch?v=gmiKenqLVAU
MisanthropiCynic@lemm.ee 3 months ago
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”
notsoshaihulud@lemmy.world 3 months ago
oh look, a literal “free speech absolutist.”
Wrong platform
MisanthropiCynic@lemm.ee 3 months ago
I’m banned from that platform because they do not believe in free speech absolutism, especially when you start in on churches and cops
BakerBagel@midwest.social 3 months ago
There is a massive difference between allowed to say my government is doing something wrong, and being allowed to say “gas all the kikes”. One is criticism of authority, which is good. The other is hate speech, which is bad. You can absolutely have one without the other.
MisanthropiCynic@lemm.ee 3 months ago
There is no difference between those two phrases if you actually have free speech
And in fact, saying “I voted for Donald Trump”, is way more offensive to me than saying “kill everyone in Gaza”
Lemminary@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Hate speech is not free speech, boo.
MisanthropiCynic@lemm.ee 3 months ago
Yes, it is.
That’s why all the Westborough Baptist people can stand around with God hates fags signs and nothing happens to them
prinzmegahertz@lemm.ee 3 months ago
Yeah, and an allied soldier in WW2 was just the flipside of a Wehrmacht soldier, so both were the same, right?
MisanthropiCynic@lemm.ee 3 months ago
Chinese and Japanese soldiers during that time period would be a much more accurate comparison, and the answer is yes
UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 3 months ago
Both were working class, so in that perspective yes.
Tarquinn2049@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Free speech isn’t intended to supercede criminal law. Advocating for hurting people is a crime. If they want to do it and have it be covered as “free speech”, they need to start by changing the law.
grue@lemmy.world 3 months ago
It’s really not, though. Making a specific, credible threat against someone can be, but speaking in general terms that someone ought to be hurt without specifying how, when or by who is not.
I’m sure you’ll become correct momentarily, though, once Trump declares that calling for his removal (or hell, any criticism of the regime because why not?) would “hurt” him politically and is therefore a felony. That is what you had in mind, right?
MisanthropiCynic@lemm.ee 3 months ago
Advocating for hurting people is not a crime. Even an inactionable threat is not a crime. Look up precedent for arrests of inciting a riot and see how many of those charges actually stuck or help up on appeal.
The fact that people are saying yore okay to punch Nazis in the face would be a violation of what you are advocating for but you have no problem with that because you don’t like Nazis.
IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 months ago
One Question:
Do you think the government should ban CSAM (Child Sexual Abuse Materials)?
If yes, then you are already okay with limits the First Amendment and your argument is invalid
If no, you’re a pedophile and you need to GTFO
MisanthropiCynic@lemm.ee 3 months ago
No. The government has no right to accessing anybody’s materials. Warrant or not.
TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee 3 months ago
this isn’t about fringe democratic congressmen addressing hate speech, this is about a sitting president threatening to punish protests.