Arresting judges, suspending habeas corpus, detaining political commentators at airports...
At what point do we agree that it's no longer illegal to say the thing that we all need to say?
this post was submitted on 14 May 2025
122 points (98.4% liked)
News
29403 readers
2682 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It will always be illegal, under the current state of affairs it's getting more dangerous not less dangerous to say such things.
We are currently in a state where what you say online will be held against you. We are approaching the perfect storm of 1984 surveillance and blade runner technology
Arresting mayors, threatening to arrest members of congress....
Remember, the fascists don't declare fascism. They declare anti-fascism illegal.
Guys.
Learn the saying: "A grand jury would indict a ham sandwich"
There is good reason to believe that they could be going through with it to set precedent that a judge cannot be arrested for following due process.
Edit: also, a "grand" jury is not some bigshot court thing; it has nothing to do with having more authority than a trial jury. Instead, it's called such in the context of size - a grand jury usually has 16+ members as opposed to the typical 6-12 members of a trial jury.
I hate this case.
Ice did a bunch of shitty illegal things
The judge tried to slightly protect the normalcy of her courtroom, and did at least one slightly wrong thing.
Yet, with all the shit they did they're not being held accountable only she is.
I would honestly hope that a judge in her case would have done at least what she did, But I would also hope that ice would hold themselves to any fucking even half assed moral standard.
While arresting judges is fucked up, the fact that this is a grand jury implies that the public had a part in deciding if the case should continue no?
Of course they could have gotten lucky with a full maga jury knowing how many troglodytes are in this country...
It gives the facade of public input but the prosecutor is who controls the show and writes the narrative. The opposite example of this is all the cops who are never held accountable for their crimes because prosecutors decide to only show evidence exhonerating them, the grand jury comes back deciding not to indict, and these sleazeballs then point to the process and say "justice in action!"
Grand juries are entirely one sided. The prosecutor tries to convince the jury. There is no defense. There is no one there to dispute anything the prosecutor says.
There's a saying that a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich. Grand juries aren't an effective barrier to frivolous law enforcement. Any prosecutor can convince a grand jury on anything. Those who can't, don't stay prosecutors for long.
Well that's not great....
Now that you mentioned it, I do actually recall hearing that saying. No bueno...
That's the second time in this thread I read about a ham sandwich and I'm getting so hungry. Stop it!
Harm Always Manifests Soon After Notorious Dictators Willfully Illegally Charge Heros.
It implies that the prosecutors got to select the group of people tasked with deciding whether or not to indict.
This is not a trial jury voting to convict, but a grand jury deciding that the case can go to trial.
thats how they choose jurors stupid enough to vote one way or another, they dont want actually educated jurors for the most part.