Genzedong’s quarantine on reddit now arguably breaks this law.

  • @Shrike502@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    402 years ago

    I think we all know which viewpoints this law will be used to defend, and which conveniently will not fall under the purview.

    • JucheBot1988
      link
      fedilink
      252 years ago

      “I disagree with what you say (not really), but I will defend to death your right to say it (that you’re a fascist).”

  • commet-alt-w
    link
    fedilink
    232 years ago

    but fails to curtail that social media is an arm of the national security state, and always has been, and still maintains who and who cannot raise the topics of violence and onto whom

  • AgreeableLandscape☭
    link
    fedilink
    22
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    According to capitalist states, we’re promoting terrorism (aka, socialist revolution). They see us as on the same level as ISIS or Aum Shinrikyo, so probably not.

      • AgreeableLandscape☭
        link
        fedilink
        62 years ago

        Until they start arresting communists just for identifying as communists. Like in Nazi Germany, or, like Poland and Ukraine currently do.

    • @anothertranscomrade
      link
      132 years ago

      “For the bourgeoisie, freedom of the press meant freedom for the rich to publish and for the capitalists to control the newspapers, a practice which in all countries, including even the freest, produced a corrupt press.” -Lenin

      • Yeah. He aint wrong.

        I used to critically support free speech as some ideal to uphold.

        But the past 3 years it has occured to me that what too many mean by free speech is to have the freedom to lie.

        Not like there’s a way to prevent people from speaking freely. These days, the whole freedom of speech thing just reeks of pure idealism.

  • If I’m getting this correct, the lower circuit court is at odds with the supreme court? Would that mean enforcement of it would probably be along “partisan lines” in each respective state?

  • FossilPoet
    link
    fedilink
    9
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    The war over censorship is not a war over whether it should be happening or not, but a war over who dictates what is worthy of censoring. We lose whether it’s the Dems or the GOP. The Dems have their hands just as deep in it (e.g., “state-affiliated media” labels) and it’s hilarious how this is painted as so one-sided to believe that there’s only political motivation in the GOP’s case.

    One only needs to recognize that the arguments the tech companies are putting forth are bad faith and contradictory to their actions to realize this (I mean, c’mon…they’re literally big tech).

    Bergmayer said the verdict could cause platforms to lose their ability to effectively stop the spread of hate speech, abuse, and misinformation. He suggests the ruling implies that newspapers could be ordered to publish propaganda or email spam filters could become illegal because it’s a tech company blocking political speech.

    They’ve never had an interest in stopping the spread of those things. Newspapers already publish propaganda. The spam filter legality question is just absurd, but they know that because even current laws do not consider political messaging to be spam and refuse to apply that framework to it which allows for a firm exercised abuse. They’re trying to hold our rights hostage in a self-serving manner like they always do without meaning to contribute to the defense of them.