politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I thought advocating the violent overthrow of the government was illegal? I have questions. It floors me when one side refuses to use the existing mechanisms to combat the illegality of the other as if it would be ill-mannered of them to quash murderous rhetoric.
They say it takes two sides to fight, and that's true. You have to cooperate with someone looking for a fight. But you also have to cooperate with someone trying to walk all over you. Fascism must be killed in the crib. We've seen what happens when you don't.
There is a war happening right now over the soul and future of America and one side has no idea it's even fighting. I love this country too much to see it fall to the wrong side of history. But things are looking bleak.
It really depends how you say it. You can say things in such a way where you're covered under free speech. For example
Telling a mob to "go over there and attack all the dirty [racial group] to cleanse our city" is 100% incitement and you will go to jail, regardless of who you are
But going onto your podcast and saying "man, I really think the best thing for our society would be to get rid of all the dirty [racial group] so we can be cleansed" is protected under free speech
It really depends on what the man who's the topic of the OP said, to determine whether he said something illegal or not.
Keep in mind they tried to fight fascism in Germany too. They sent Hitler to jail. Eventually he got broken out and he became dictator shortly after. I think ultimately speech and hatred is not the problem - it's the symptom. As long as we have people suffering under an economic system that doesn't provide for all their basic needs, we leave the door open for people like Trump or Prager to sneak in and offer a solution.
Can censor, arrest, and deplatform all you want, won't make a difference.
I'm very, very much not convinced that last part is true.
Right? Since when have we seen laws enforced for the rich?
When they screw over richer people.
But only then, and only sometimes still.
I suppose I just don’t appreciate the nuance between “go do evil“ and “I think people should go do evil“.
It got even narrower in [im terrible with case names]
The Supreme Court basically said unless there is imminent harm, it is free speech. Which is nuts when stochastic terrorism is rampant.
I suppose you also don't appreciate the nuance of everyone having a different perspective on what constitutes "evil".
Not when it comes to fascism, no.
Just calling everything you don't like "fascism" isn't a valid argument
I mean violently overthrowing the Democratic governments in service of white nationalism is pretty specific.
And focusing on one specific issue is entirely ignoring the point. If you want there to be no legal difference between general speech, and direct incitement, you're going to need a pretty fucking solid definition of "evil" you can work from when punishing people for harm not done. Because when idea rather than incitement is the line of the law, there's very little difference between a genuine fascist and an anarchist both stating interest in overthrowing the government.
At least in the US, speech is a protected right. So protected that it's actually the first part of the bill of rights. So naturally, any limitations on speech must be limited. This changes from place to place. For example in Europe you don't have such strong speech protections so something like showing a Nazi flag can get you years in prison.
Having said that, I think speech is one of the very few things that the US actually does better than Europe. While it may allow for people to say obscene hateful things, I believe it is dangerous to give the government the power to interpret what is valid and non-valid speech. Right now the government, while having many problems, is more or less reasonable. It doesn't take much imagination, however, to envision a future where a couple radical strongmen politicians (or even just one) fundamentally changes the nature of the federal government to a point where any dissent can be considered "hateful"
I say "white families have 10x higher net worth on average than black families" and all of a sudden it's a hateful statement because some government official claims I'm trying to guilt all white people. I go to jail or otherwise get censored.
How come Alex Jones was not allowed to state that the Sandy Hook massacre was staged?
It wasn't a criminal charge so he never was at risk of going to jail. He got sued for defamation.
Essentially if he had said "I think sandy hook was a hoax" he would have been fine. I think the judge also wanted to make an example out of him, given the nature of his statements.
Thanks for explaining
He was allowed to say that. It just turned out there were financial consequences for doing so.
Right. He could still say it. No one is stopping him. Speech is free, but it is not free from consequences.
My worry is that if we send trump to jail for any one of his felonies, he will get out somehow and lead a coup.
yeah the historical record isn't great on this. I think Trump has realized he is at the point of no return. he's crossed the rubicon. at this point unless he wins this election he's going to jail for the rest of his life.
pushing an animal into a corner makes them desperate. i think he will attempt to take over the government or die trying. it's a very precarious position and the future is uncertain
Yep. But what else can be done? If we don't stand up and show them that we will not tolerate facists and we will prosecute them from their crimes, they will keep trying to weasel their way into elected positions.
At the end of the day, standing up for our democracy is of utmost importance. Even when they threaten us, we HAVE to stick to our ideals.
I believe if we got through the 60s without a violent uprising, we'll do it again today. We just have to show our strength. Facists rarely have the balls target the strong and organized.
Like I said in the previous comment in this thread, there's only one thing we really can do. As long as there is this constant economic insecurity in the majority of the population, we will have growth of fascists. You can lock them up, censor them, beat them up, whatever. They will still grow and multiply.
This is the unfortunate nature of humanity. When people are insecure, they tend to lash out onto others. This works both on a personal level and a societal level. It's not a coincidence the Nazis came to power after a period of hyperinflation in the 1920s and then the Great Depression immediately after.
I support radical large scale economic reforms. Sort of a New Deal type of thing. Coincidentally, that happened around the growth of fascism last century. Back during that time period we were seeing Nazi rallies in NYC with thousands of people attending. Around that same time period we also saw a socialist/communist candidate for president get over a million votes 3rd party.
Economic insecurity leads to radicalism - in both directions. Who wins first can be a bit random. But generally, people who are more brutal win. Look at the Spanish Civil War. Corporate greed is going to nose-dive our country. We can't seem to think further than the next financial quarter statement or the next election.
They will try forever. That is the nature of democratic systems. It's eternally vulnerable to these types of people.
Which is why it is important to get out and vote at every opportunity and vote on every race. They will be looking for ways to get in through the cracks at every chance they can. Democracy demands eternal vigilance from its people.
No, I'm not saying we don't jail him. He's clearly guilty, come on.
guilty or not doesn't really matter here. i'm not saying we don't jail him either, but just because something is the right thing doesn't always make it the right thing. if that makes any sense
if you have the right of way and decide to go through that intersection consequences be damned, some of the time you're gonna get hit by someone who doesn't care about traffic laws
you're right - but you're dead
trump broke the law. but arresting him and not letting him flout our laws may end up causing more damage due to unforeseen consequences.
i'm not saying this is actually the case, but it's something to consider. and i'm sure the prosecutors in all of these cases have had some serious counsel from officials high up in the federal government
it's all uncertain and all paths are dangerous. who knows what's coming next, honestly. my hope is the guy just has a stroke and the momentum he's been building since 2016 peters out. i don't think there's another contender that can do what he's currently doing
🤮
Maybe if you're edgy enough people will assume you have the capacity for original thought
What's the alternative? Saying that politicians are free to rig an election, then stage a coup, and if it doesn't work you just get to walk away?
Not prosecuting Nixon was the biggest mistake this country made (hyperbole), and you can draw a straight line from that to where we are now.