USA Politics Thread |OT| Cleaning up the town

[VomKriege]

https://twitter.com/sfpelosi/status/1521294980488204289

Lofty lefty

[Rufus]

Yes, as I said, the most essential human right is freedom of speech.

If you cannot speak you cannot advocate for your rights. It is essential.

Non-violently, anyway.

But why does it need to be as close to absolute as is possible? Germany doesn't have a particularly good set of restrictions (for a recent example, google "Du bist so 1 pimmel"), but there are some that I have no issue with, such as Holocaust denial or hate speech. Do these impede the functioning of our democracy?

So long as a court has to decide their application, I see no issue with some restrictions.

[Uncle]

So long as a court has to decide their application, I see no issue with some restrictions.

the same court that is in the process of overturning roe v wade?

[benjipwns]

But why does it need to be as close to absolute as is possible? Germany doesn't have a particularly good set of restrictions (for a recent example, google "Du bist so 1 pimmel"), but there are some that I have no issue with, such as Holocaust denial or hate speech. Do these impede the functioning of our democracy?

So long as a court has to decide their application, I see no issue with some restrictions.

Unfortunately I have yet to hear a limiting principle other than to simply trust in those who cannot themselves be trusted to speak or hear certain ideas.

[Rufus]

...Who upholds free speech then?

[VomKriege]

Holocaust denialism never seemed like much of a loss in the public discussion over here, to be honest.

[Uncle]

...Who upholds free speech then?

the uncomplicated first amendment as it stands?

like, you can say ok, we're going to start breaking this up and imposing some limits on speech, courts and the justice system will define what unlawful hate speech is, depending on the current political leanings of the court

or, you don't alter it and then no one is defining it and you don't have to worry about either party molding it to their ends



we're insanely lucky that hick conservatives are the ones with an uncritical worship of muh freedums, it's probably the only thing keeping a conservative carving up of free speech off the table

even when the christians were trying to protect the children from naughty music and dungeons and dragons, they had to work around the first amendment rather than dismantle it, because to them it would be unamerican to touch the sacred texts

[VomKriege]

https://twitter.com/owillis/status/1521880352914120705

[D3RANG3D]

 

[james]

Benji: The market is optimal, everything should be priced so resources are allocated perfectly. Nothing is free. Free is waste.

Benji: SPEECH MUST BE FREE REEEEEEEE

[Rufus]

...Who upholds free speech then?

the uncomplicated first amendment as it stands?

That doesn't mean it maintains itself. Someone has to make sure it's enforced as intended. If a government can enforce a stronger interpretation of free speech, it can enforce a weaker interpretation and maintain it at that level, too.

[Uncle]

why on earth would you do that

governments can enforce a weaker interpretation of voter rights, or property rights, or right to an attorney

I mean sure it's all good, some people cast votes for trump which are inherently damaging to the union and on some level fueled by hatred/racism, we have justification to remove voting rights if you're not going to use that right responsibly

[Lonewulfeus]

Republicans have no problem stopping people they don’t like from voting and it seems to be working for them.

[Uncle]

Republicans have no problem stopping people they don’t like from voting and it seems to be working for them.

correct, and if they were further enabled to find ways to arrest people for saying things they didn't like it would be equally ruinous

[Lonewulfeus]

Republicans have no problem stopping people they don’t like from voting and it seems to be working for them.

correct, and if they were further enabled to find ways to arrest people for saying things they didn't like it would be equally ruinous

Take a look at what they’re doing to Madison Cawthorn right now if you don’t believe they are already capable of punishing people for saying things they don’t like.

[Uncle]

Republicans have no problem stopping people they don’t like from voting and it seems to be working for them.

correct, and if they were further enabled to find ways to arrest people for saying things they didn't like it would be equally ruinous

Take a look at what they’re doing to Madison Cawthorn right now if you don’t believe they are already capable of punishing people for saying things they don’t like.

and all this would be happening to a much worse degree if voting rights and 1A were compromised in an official capacity, but fortunately they remain limited to loopholes

[Rufus]

why on earth would you do that

governments can enforce a weaker interpretation of voter rights, or property rights, or right to an attorney

I mean sure it's all good, some people cast votes for trump which are inherently damaging to the union and on some level fueled by hatred/racism, we have justification to remove voting rights if you're not going to use that right responsibly

What are your trying to argue? Should we not be able to change laws, ever?

My point is: our right to free expression over here in Germany is not as wide-ranging as yours in the US, but things turned out - fine, mostly? We have a functioning liberal society. I'm trying to tease out why anything lesser than "total" is unuseable, I guess. That's where the line appears to be drawn. Stray from that and you can't have - what? Things are doomed to get worse?

[Nintex]

https://twitter.com/AprilDRyan/status/1522303111863455744

New WH Press Secretary just dropped.

At least the news of a new recession, food shortages and the Russians using tactical nukes won't be shared by another yt

[D3RANG3D]

Dissent. 

[Potato]

https://twitter.com/AprilDRyan/status/1522303111863455744

New WH Press Secretary just dropped.

Psaki is still 

But I can work with her

[Uncle]

why on earth would you do that

governments can enforce a weaker interpretation of voter rights, or property rights, or right to an attorney

I mean sure it's all good, some people cast votes for trump which are inherently damaging to the union and on some level fueled by hatred/racism, we have justification to remove voting rights if you're not going to use that right responsibly

What are your trying to argue? Should we not be able to change laws, ever?

My point is: our right to free expression over here in Germany is not as wide-ranging as yours in the US, but things turned out - fine, mostly? We have a functioning liberal society. I'm trying to tease out why anything lesser than "total" is unuseable, I guess. That's where the line appears to be drawn. Stray from that and you can't have - what? Things are doomed to get worse?

your specific statement was that it's ok to weaken rights, not merely "change laws"

yes if the FDA wants to change the percentage of real fruit juice required in a product in order to call it actual juice, they can change that up, down, in any direction

that's not a matter of rights, though



we have a right to an attorney. let's just arbitrarily weaken that a little bit, we'll say that if the act you committed was motivated by hatred then that's unconscionable and in these cases, you have waived your right to an attorney

jan 6 insurrectionists were motivated by hate so none of them get a court advocate...but then, those who hate Trump don't either

we have property rights. let's just arbitrarily weaken that a little bit, we'll say that if you purchase something that could be used to demonstrate denial of the Holocaust then you have no right to what you have purchased and it can be confiscated by the state

use a laptop to browse your way to a denialist conspiracy site, you lose your laptop...even if it was an accidental click or you're 100% against it and claim you were doing research

and, in line with the above, we also have free speech rights...



every argument in favor of weakening rights all feel identical to when politicians weasel in some "think of the children" justification, when it's obvious to everyone that this verbiage was used to make those opposed to it appear monstrous or anti-children

"ban books that teach the injustices done to black people, because the poor white children will have their self-esteem devastated"

erosion of rights is always a wolf in sheep's clothing

[Rufus]

your specific statement was that it's ok to weaken rights, not merely "change laws"

No it wasn't.

[Lonewulfeus]

Why not deal with the erosion of rights were actually dealing with instead of spending so much time playing devils advocate against changes that have absolutely no chance of ever seeing the light of day?  Republican appointed Supreme Court justices have decided that past precedent no longer matters, I think that’s a bigger deal than whatever random Twitter users are saying

[Nintex]

https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1522331009613713408




It's like Putin recorded this especially for you guys
https://twitter.com/KevinRothrock/status/1522206145817071616

[VomKriege]

YOU DID THIS
https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3891477&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=1534#post523201934

The whole thread
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1521294535556571137.html

[benjipwns]

Republicans have no problem stopping people they don’t like from voting and it seems to be working for them.

correct, and if they were further enabled to find ways to arrest people for saying things they didn't like it would be equally ruinous

Take a look at what they’re doing to Madison Cawthorn right now if you don’t believe they are already capable of punishing people for saying things they don’t like.

Why not deal with the erosion of rights were actually dealing with instead of spending so much time playing devils advocate against changes that have absolutely no chance of ever seeing the light of day?  Republican appointed Supreme Court justices have decided that past precedent no longer matters, I think that’s a bigger deal than whatever random Twitter users are saying

The fuck are you talking about? Occam came into this thread once again to say that the government should be allowed to completely control everyone's speech and we're responding to that and people agreeing with him that freedom of speech should not be allowed, not saying that anything about Twitter matters.

Whatever's going on with Madison Cawthorn is merely you trying to be disingenuous and muddy the waters because the government is not prosecuting and threatening to imprison him for his speech. If your position is that no one should ever be allowed to be criticized for their speech (especially not elected officials) and such criticism should be outlawed maybe you should actually take that position instead of throwing Cawthorn as an example into a discussion about whether the government should be imprisoning people for their speech.

And the Supreme Court has always overruled past precedents, if that's your major complaint about any Supreme Court decision it's not going to get you very far. The Court overruling Plessy is vastly superior to it footnoting that it considers Korematsu good precedent but it won't ever apply it.

...Who upholds free speech then?

That doesn't mean it maintains itself. Someone has to make sure it's enforced as intended. If a government can enforce a stronger interpretation of free speech, it can enforce a weaker interpretation and maintain it at that level, too.

What are your trying to argue? Should we not be able to change laws, ever?

My point is: our right to free expression over here in Germany is not as wide-ranging as yours in the US, but things turned out - fine, mostly? We have a functioning liberal society. I'm trying to tease out why anything lesser than "total" is unuseable, I guess. That's where the line appears to be drawn. Stray from that and you can't have - what? Things are doomed to get worse?

The government should not be allowed to infringe on the content of speech at all. This empowers them to decide on the content of all speech. I asked you for a limiting principle and you've come back with merely restating your previous theory that there shouldn't be one and the government should be able to limit whatever it wants.

I don't care if you think that your own government suppressing speech is fine because you don't want to say certain things anyway but I personally don't want to live in a society where people fear being imprisoned and killed if they say something the state decides is wrong let alone one where this is actually happening and there's no law to defend anyone with. (Telling me that the American government is not perfect and often criminal is not going to get you very far either.) Some people seem to think societies where what the people are allowed to think is limited to only what the government approves is superior to liberal democracy, but I disagree. If you want to convince me otherwise you're going to have to do significantly better than "well, it's only gone wrong for the people who do what the government doesn't want."

I really don't understand your claim that courts preventing the government from violating the clear language of "shall make no law" (not even punishing them for violating the law, since governments are immune) means that courts should be allowed to determine instances where governments may actually ignore this and make laws against freedom of speech. If the people wish to change this law then the people can repeal the First Amendment (or at least its part about speech and press), this absolutely cannot mean the government alone can simply ignore the law because it wishes it to be different or start pretending it can find loopholes in the law even where the law allows for none.

You, and Occam, seem to be arguing that because past governments were criminal, current and future governments should be allowed to be criminal and apparently exempt from even being called criminal by anyone else. While this is probably Occam's position since he's always argued for complete authoritarianism, I'm going to continue to doubt it's actually yours and assume it's merely because you're trying to grasp for reasons that people should be imprisoned for their speech if the government dislikes it.

[benjipwns]

Rep. Victoria Spartz topped a nonpartisan group’s “Worst Bosses” list last year, winning the dubious title of most staff turnover in the House. Her retention record is only getting worse.

Four aides are departing the Indiana Republican’s office this month after another exited weeks ago, leaving a skeleton crew of staffers in the first-term lawmaker’s D.C. office. Spartz’s exodus is on the radar of GOP leadership, which has tried to address her performance as an employer at least twice since the end of last year, according to a senior Republican close to the matter.

The frequent departures stem from an allegedly unhealthy work environment, according to interviews with eight people, including more than a half-dozen former staffers as well as Republicans familiar with her office dynamics who were granted anonymity to speak candidly. They described Spartz as an unpredictable boss whose temper can rocket from tepid to boiling.

Those former staffers and other Republicans told POLITICO she frequently yells and curses at aides, belittling her staff’s intelligence and berating them in front of others — members, constituents and even with reporters in close proximity. On more than one occasion, three former staffers said, Spartz likened her aides’ writing skills to those of elementary-school students and proclaimed that her children were more talented than her staff.

Inside Spartz’s office, three of the former staffers accused the Republican of raising tensions by usually avoiding firings and instead bullying aides until they leave on their own.

staffers say her response to previous staff departures followed a familiar pattern, according to multiple former staffers and Republicans: She would respond that she was effectively doing the jobs of her exiting aides anyway.

Some of the former staffers pointed to Spartz’s inability to make up her mind about standard decisions — including about hiring new aides — as another significant problem. That paralysis, as well as Spartz’s assertions that her staff would frequently get her demands wrong, led to a mutually agreed-upon practice between her and employees to make audio recordings of her requests or guidance for tasks she wanted completed.

But despite the existence of that audio, former staffers said, Spartz at times would later deny that she asked her aides to take a certain action or accuse aides of doing something she didn’t want. The former staffers interviewed said they decided not to play Spartz the tapes of her own voice in order to avoid further conflict with their then-boss, despite her requesting that the conversations be recorded.

[Skullfuckers Anonymous]

https://mobile.twitter.com/FOX9/status/1522648758684635141

 

[benjipwns]

A modern day Eugene Debs.

[VomKriege]

https://twitter.com/w_terrence/status/1522340951586492416

[who is ted danson?]

why are they posing like 14 year old girls?

[VomKriege]

TK is very much a fangirl for Don.

[Nintex]

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1522747160252481536

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1522746017451442176

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1522743139475197952

https://twitter.com/LegendaryEnergy/status/1522758140403470337

The Johnson's just had their vaccine restricted by the FDA so now is a good time to go to a Trump Rally. 

[Rufus]

I asked you for a limiting principle and you've come back with merely restating your previous theory that there shouldn't be one and the government should be able to limit whatever it wants.

I left that alone because I thought you don't believe in any lesser limiting priciples than what your 1st amendment provides, i.e. 'agree to disagree' and walk away.
While our limiting principle is weaker, it's still a limiting principle. Our government is less restricted in how it can limit speech, not unrestricted. Meaning this, afaict...

The government should not be allowed to infringe on the content of speech at all. This empowers them to decide on the content of all speech.

...isn't actually true.

[Cauliflower Of Love]

That crowd hype level at a huh out of what.

[VomKriege]

I didn't have high expectations for Dr.Oz but holy shit
https://twitter.com/AccountableGOP/status/1522709435122327552

Someone say the context is that he's referencing a law regarding Backpage, a site for classified ads but huh...

[Nintex]

The MAGA crowd hates Dr Oz and they hate J&J it's hilarious

They all had to stand in a puddle of mud to hear Trump praise them.

[D3RANG3D]

[Pissy F Benny]

[Nintex]

https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1523040542208135168

[Cauliflower Of Love]

Didn't that happen during the elections nin 16?

[Skullfuckers Anonymous]

You might be thinking of this.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Jeff_Paul/status/1321331610344656897

[benjipwns]

While our limiting principle is weaker, it's still a limiting principle. Our government is less restricted in how it can limit speech, not unrestricted. Meaning this, afaict...

The government should not be allowed to infringe on the content of speech at all. This empowers them to decide on the content of all speech.

...isn't actually true.

I think these are absolutely connected. "Hate speech" is a broad infinite category that can be constantly redefined and the entire power of redefinition is itself placed with entities with an incentive to expand it. I think you'd also have to argue against history to claim that content restrictions don't expand outwards once granted. When the Supreme Court said that speech against war and slavery was outside the First Amendment because of the danger these posed to the government doing what it wished this eventually was used as a supporting precedent to justify outlawing political parties, books, advocating communism broadly, speaking against a war at a time when others are also speaking against it, etc. and was also used to get around other precedents against compelling speech. The First Amendment never changed from "shall make no law" but administrations and courts didn't stop writing exceptions into this for "dangerous" speech until the Supreme Court explicitly reversed itself after fifty years. (Similarly, the Supreme Court saying that political speech and the free press could be limited led to the Obama Administration arguing that it could ban books from being published.) Maybe non-Americans are less likely to abuse exceptions without bounds but that theory doesn't seem to fit very well with the theory that it's existentially dangerous to allow non-Americans to speak or hear things the government dislikes.

I don't mean to debate the particulars of German law (nor American law actually I'm just pointing to it as examples) especially since my German is nicht sehr gut but to me the "insults the human dignity" provision is a giant gaping hole that a malicious actor will absolutely abuse. It would be one thing if the law said something like "denying that the Holocaust happened" but that's not what it says and this actually isn't illegal in Germany, instead the entire prohibition is on the broader category of "hate speech" and relies mostly on a government determination of "incitement" and "insults human dignity" which are the very problems that American law had and still has. It's not that your content may cross a line so you know specifically what you can and cannot say (that'd be bad enough), it's that someone in the government interprets it that way. And who determines if the government is interpreting it accurately? The government. The "limiting principle" isn't one because it relies on the good faith of an actor who has already determined that your content is criminal. In theory, the people can vote out people who might abuse this exception but to me history suggests that arguing for this would be written into the exception as the American government has done multiple times against people who criticized war and foreign policies. (For the record, I wouldn't care for the American government declaring a global jurisdiction to enforce its speech content laws either.)

It's true that in the greater debate about free speech I simply can't fathom why anyone would ever want another person imprisoned for their speech but to this specific point I'm just not being glib and rhetorical when I say that I haven't seen a system that criminalizes speech that doesn't seem to rely entirely on the good faith of people who thankfully adhere to liberal democratic values to not begin abusing exceptions to freedom of speech to eliminate speech against the government or anyone else with power. At a time when politically focused elites seem increasingly interested in extreme illiberalism and very specifically so about speech I don't find such theoretical non-legal safeguards to provide a very protective feeling. I'm not going to say Germany or Canada's system doesn't "work" to an extent (and I am being glib to suggest those except Canada are not mostly liberal democracies) but I don't see why it wouldn't work even better if those states didn't criminalize speech. Sure, point to America, but I don't understand how Donald Trump criminalizing criticism of himself and his administration would have led to his defeat in the 2020 election as it did in our non-hypothetical world. If your argument is that any pro-Trump speech should have simply been criminalized back prior to 2015 then I think you're proving my point about the abuse of exceptions. Donald Trump (like others such as Woodrow Wilson and Richard Nixon) has long despised free speech and especially the free press, but he wasn't able to get very far on this, with few bills even being introduced by his largest sycophants and his executive attempts gutted, because the American exceptions are so few and small.

[Nintex]

Germany is an interesting case.
There was a poll done a while ago that showed people are more afraid to say what they think now than they were in the DDR.

When Das Leben der Anderen released in 2006 it seemed crazy to live in a society like that and now that's pretty much the reality everywhere.

[Rufus]

I don't mean to debate the particulars of German law (nor American law actually I'm just pointing to it as examples) especially since my German is nicht sehr gut but to me the "insults the human dignity" provision is a giant gaping hole that a malicious actor will absolutely abuse.

I don't know if I'm more optimistic on this point or less. More, because I'm not worried about anyone abusing this loophole, or less, because I think that no limits would ultimately stop bad actors with popular support, whether there are loopholes or not.

Maybe BisMarkie will see this when he's got the time, because unlike me he's actually equipped to have an informed discussion about this, since he teaches the topic.

[VomKriege]

Wasn't the DDR... 20% of the combined German population ? So any poll results on the matter would actually be fairly narrow.

[Nintex]

Wasn't the DDR... 20% of the combined German population ? So any poll results on the matter would actually be fairly narrow.

It's difficult to find the exact source on modern Google but there's a pretty lenghty piece on the recent poll they did
https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/germany-struggles-to-define-limits-of-what-can-be-said-a-1295229.html

[Rufus]

There was a poll done a while ago that showed people are more afraid to say what they think now than they were in the DDR.

I'm not familiar with that poll, but I find that silly on its face. I smell a hefty dose of GDR nostalgia.

When Das Leben der Anderen released in 2006 it seemed crazy to live in a society like that and now that's pretty much the reality everywhere.

Because of constant mass surveillance, or because you can get shouted at online by what feels like the whole world (shortcircuiting people's sense of proportion)?

[benjipwns]

I don't know if I'm more optimistic on this point or less. More, because I'm not worried about anyone abusing this loophole, or less, because I think that no limits would ultimately stop bad actors with popular support, whether there are loopholes or not.

Probably more optimistic, as I already said earlier in this conversation I don't expect only good people to obtain power. With or without popular support, especially since history has shown they don't need it in order to abuse the law.

To elaborate further, when considering the example of a single system where such abuse is legally prohibited and protections that victims are able to appeal to exists but yet such abuses or other attempts at abuses happened for centuries, it doesn't seem clear why a purportedly younger system where such prohibitions and protections don't exist should be taken on faith to not have any abuses possible even if none have happened yet to date in the current incarnation.

[Cauliflower Of Love]

You might be thinking of this.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Jeff_Paul/status/1321331610344656897

that's actually exactly what I was thinking about. 


down to the video clip

[VomKriege]

I understand the theorical argument and that you probably lump them both in a vaster category but for all the hand wringing about Euro hate speech laws it seems the main lever from governments the democratic world over to police speech is still top secret / military security / espionage based arguments. It's not exactly new either, France during WW1 notably ramped up censorship up to, IIRC, every letter being liable to being open and read. The main exception I think of is the arts where the arguments to excoriate are generally morality based then and now.

I don't want to say it's an inconsequential matter but "hate speech laws" really had a rather minor effect so far in reality despite seniority compared to new counterterrorism laws or the tectonic changes brought by the Internet on where and how speech is exchanged.

Even the American "disinfo fighting" council or board at the DHS is framed in foreign hostile influence terms.

[Nintex]

https://twitter.com/realLizUSA/status/1523450642605707264

[Occam]

You, and Occam, seem to be arguing that because past governments were criminal, current and future governments should be allowed to be criminal and apparently exempt from even being called criminal by anyone else. While this is probably Occam's position since he's always argued for complete authoritarianism

I did no such thing. Why are you arguing in bad faith? Having certain rules in place that prevent the erosion of democracy or the destruction of the environment (our habitat) is not a call for authoritarianism. Quite the contrary. It allows for a maximum of individual freedom, because our safety is protected. Free speech absolutism is nonsense, and doesn't exist anywhere. There are always limits on speech, even in America. For instance there are defamation laws, or if you call for someone to be murdered, or post instructions on how to build weapons of mass destruction, presumably you will be arrested.
ALL rights have limits.
Furthermore, I wasn't suggesting broad censorship (or imprisonment of anyone), only that news media adhere to certain ethical standards, like fact checking and not repeating disinformation once disproven.
Having large disinformation networks (basically brainwashing operations) in place that serve as the only source of news for much of the population is not beneficial to democracy. Asides from paving the way for a fascist dictatorship, this actually kills people. How many Americans have died of Covid after refusing perfectly safe vaccines because right-wing propaganda lied to them? In the near future, another example is going to be man-made global warming, which is about to kill millions (billions?).
I have yet to hear a good argument how Hitler's credo "the jews are our misfortune!" being broadcast to millions long before he took power was somehow beneficial to society in general or democracy in specific.
Doctors have a code of ethics they need to adhere to, as do lawyers. Why shouldn't journalists? And since corporations are people according to the gods of capitalism, why shouldn't the corporate sellers of news have a code of ethics, too?
You always seem to focus on minute details instead of looking at the bigger picture, ignoring causal relationships. You are refusing to acknowledge what has been unfolding right in front of your eyes for the past 30 or so years. Not seeing the forest for the trees?

Anyway, as I said before, I fear US democracy may be beyond saving at this point.
Republicans own most high level judges, precedent no longer matters. They are making gerrymandering and voter suppression legal while Democrats can't even pass any laws thanks to the insane way the US government works. Soon enough the theocrats will take over, and they are already in the process of taking away your rights. They will manage to outlaw abortion, and after they do I see no reason why they wouldn't come for gay marriage. And maybe contraception, too. Because, why not. It's not in the holy constitution, after all. Unlike the right to own automatic rifles. Buckle up!

[benjipwns]

Having certain rules in place that prevent the erosion of democracy or the destruction of the environment (our habitat) is not a call for authoritarianism. Quite the contrary. It allows for a maximum of individual freedom, because our safety is protected. Free speech absolutism is nonsense, and doesn't exist anywhere. There are always limits on speech, even in America. For instance there are defamation laws, or if you call for someone to be murdered, or post instructions on how to build weapons of mass destruction, presumably you will be arrested.

So you don't know anything about American laws and yet you're pontificating on them at length?

The "maximum of individual freedom" is not "you are imprisoned when you say what the government doesn't like."

Furthermore, I wasn't suggesting broad censorship (or imprisonment of anyone), only that news media adhere to certain ethical standards, like fact checking and not repeating disinformation once disproven.
Having large disinformation networks (basically brainwashing operations) in place that serve as the only source of news for much of the population is not beneficial to democracy. Asides from paving the way for a fascist dictatorship, this actually kills people. How many Americans have died of Covid after refusing perfectly safe vaccines because right-wing propaganda lied to them? In the near future, another example is going to be man-made global warming, which is about to kill millions (billions?).
I have yet to hear a good argument how Hitler's credo "the jews are our misfortune!" being broadcast to millions long before he took power was somehow beneficial to society in general or democracy in specific.
Doctors have a code of ethics they need to adhere to, as do lawyers. Why shouldn't journalists? And since corporations are people according to the gods of capitalism, why shouldn't the corporate sellers of news have a code of ethics, too?

Funny again how you yet say you aren't calling for censorship or imprisonment and then immediately start listing out your grievances about people you do want to censor and imprison. And earlier you pretty explicitly said you want to compel speech. If you don't want people to be censored and imprisoned then why are you spending so much time explaining why in a democracy some ideas should not be allowed to be spoken or heard without people being imprisoned for it?

Republicans own most high level judges, precedent no longer matters.  They are making gerrymandering and voter suppression legal

Again, totally ignorant of how the law works yet expert on how it should work. For the maintenance of democracy of course.

Democrats can't even pass any laws thanks to the insane way the US government works.

In your country if a party does not have a majority can it pass laws without compromise? Can the party pass laws without compromise when it's own members disagree? Assume the party whip is incredibly weak.

[benjipwns]

If you just want to bitch about Republicans then do that, you don't need to rewrite The Republic, Plato.

[benjipwns]

Fundraising:

[Potato]

Fundraising:
(Image removed from quote.)
(Image removed from quote.)

I wonder how this qualifies her to be a member of parliament?

[benjipwns]

I wonder how this qualifies her to be a member of parliament?

What part of "I'm not a racist, unlike my dad" did you miss?

[Occam]

There are always limits on speech, even in America. For instance there are defamation laws, or if you call for someone to be murdered, or post instructions on how to build weapons of mass destruction, presumably you will be arrested.

So you don't know anything about American laws and yet you're pontificating on them at length?

Which part of what I posted was wrong? There are defamation laws, incitement to murder is illegal, there is a federal law against distributing bomb-making instructions.

Are you saying you don't actually know anything about American laws?

[benjipwns]

You yourself hedged when you said "presumably" that those things would get you arrested.

Defamation is a tort, criminal defamation law in the states (there is no federal law) has been gutted and is essentially only used by the police to prosecute their critics, good luck trying to bring a criminal prosecution for defamation against another private party in 2022 until the Supreme Court overturns Sullivan. Calling for someone to be murdered is not illegal, go see Twitter right now if you think otherwise, incitement is specific and time sensitive and requires actions. You can go online right now and find out how to produce WMDs including nuclear weapons, this is not illegal either.

Even if these statements were true, it would not provide justification for further speech suppression.