[deleted]

Comments

• sylver_dragon@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  I’d go for the latter. The main reason being that banning Nazi ideology or speech is probably a violation of the First Amendment. Nazis are bad and their ideology is bad. But the First Amendment has been interpreted by the courts to prohibit government regulation of speech based on its content, except in very narrow circumstance. This usually means direct and specific threats.

  Just to get in front of the usual counter examples folks try to use here. Yes, you can yell, “fire” in a crowded theater. In fact, if there is a fire, you really should. There is no prior restraint on yelling, “fire” in a crowded theater. Now, you might be held accountable for causing panic and injuries in the resulting stampede for the exits. But that is not the same as a prior restraint.

  Slander is also not a prior restraint. I’m fact, it’s usually not a crime. It’s an actionable tort, a private cause for litigation.

  I get it. Banning Nazis would feel really good. But it’s basically a dead issue while the First Amendment holds. There are better places to spend political capital than tilting at a windmill.

  source

  • noob@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Making it illegal to voice certain opinions only pushes them underground. Ideas and ideology will fester if they only exist in a secluded eco chamber. Allow people the freedom to say anything in public, and let their ideas be tested in the light of open discourse. I’d rather nazis say their shit out loud so that they can be identified, and duly ridiculed. Impressionable people can watch and see how the nazi gets shat on in public.

    Most importantly, freedom of speech must be universally applied, without exception, to prevent both the uprising of shitty ideas and the suppression of good ideas.

    source

    • DjangoFett@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      I cannot argue the logic, but something in me still kicks against the idea of tolerating this kind of bullshit in any way in the future. Like, immediate and unmistakable consequences for espousing certain views - like the genocide of [group of people] for example.

      Social consequences aren’t enough because, as we have seen, any amount of tolerance allows Nazis to sway the hurt and impressionable to their side. The weak who wish to project strength will always find it easier to side with those who tell them they were the right ones, the superior ones all along and crush all who disagree.

      In this regard, tolerating their ideals in any way has led us to where we are today. “Safe spaces for absolute free speech” allowed for it while the actual moderate voices were shouted down by the vitriol of the Nazis. They festered and found power there and were allowed to and encouraged to do so.

      There needs to be a visible consequence for fucking around like that. Just like you fuck around in your car and get pulled over for endangering the public and eventually lose your right to drive a vehicle, so it needs to be with Nazism and those ideals. Humans are humans and deserve to live, period. Fuck your hard on for men with guns, feed people first. Fuck your god, help those in front of you right the fuck now or get out of the way of those who will regardless of which god they prefer if any.

      My tolerance for tolerance has worn thin.

      source
• thecaptaintrout@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  Image

  source
• masterspace@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  They should focus 100% on cost of living and nothing else.

  The only reason they won the election is because Trump fucked up the cost of living for the average American. That is literally the only that matters to people.

  Everything else is am optional side quest at best.

  source
• BooBees@fedinsfw.app ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  So they don’t take office until next year, that means there’s time to organize your thoughts and not just scramble to the first thoughts you have because it’s the most exciting topics. Organizing your thoughts means you can take a few months to form a strategy to get many things done simultaneously, that way you don’t burn any options or bridges of good faith from across the aisle opportunities that make exist.

  Is it likely you can get a veto proof majority on Epstein files or Nazi bans? Probably not. Republicans today are allergic to working with dems for the most part, with a few exceptions. Epstein file issues are far more popular as a platform among conservatives when compared to Nazi bans. That should be obvious now after the Trump years.

  So do you really want to bring up Nazi ban legislation during a Trump presidency just to have it fail and then lose public support and political will for it? It might be best to wait until a dem president has a chance to take the presidency so they can sign the bill into law. Until then you can use existing laws and congressional powers to investigate Nazis who performed illegal acts during their hold on power over the government and used it in various illegal ways.

  Go ahead an get votes on record for Epstein stuff. That will set up the next election to get rid of anyone who refuses to show up for the vote or who votes to protect the Epstein class. Read the files into record, as congresspeople are constitutionally protected from nearly all speech while on the floor in congress. Do the same for Nazi stuff, but be smart about when you actually come for the Republican Nazi wealth class, because it’s likely you’re only going to get one shot at that.

  source
• sudo@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  we’re trying to bring this country together not divide it

  source
• disregardable@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  Nothing is getting passed unless Republicans agree with it.

  The only thing I am hoping for is that the budget is passed on time. I don’t expect it. I expect the latest budget we’ve ever seen.

  source