this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2025
147 points (100.0% liked)

politics

25685 readers
4109 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TheFogan@programming.dev 77 points 2 days ago

Hate speach won't only speech that might incite someone to commit violence.

Expected result

"Mexicans are all rapists, and murderers and are harming the fabric of our society" -- Protected free speach

"that's really hateful to say about a whole class of people that have all walks of life in them just like us" -- Potentially inciting violence

[–] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 67 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Unless it's "hate" against a right winger of course.

[–] tidderuuf@lemmy.world 22 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

I would love to see them attempt to prosecute someone who uses the exact same language just targeting a fascist that all the fascists are able to say on platforms like Twitter and Trumps Social.

[–] pressedhams@lemmy.blahaj.zone 29 points 2 days ago

I’m sure it won’t take very long.

[–] Feyd@programming.dev 9 points 2 days ago

We've already seen how this works with protests.

[–] Marshezezz@lemmy.blahaj.zone 47 points 2 days ago (1 children)

All this to protect a child rapist

[–] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 20 points 2 days ago

If it was, Kirk would be in a cell instead of a grave.

When legal justice fails, vigilante justice becomes the only option.

[–] resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago
[–] Nougat@fedia.io 15 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Attorney General Pam Bondi tells Axios her office is not prosecuting or investigating anyone for alleged hate speech, only for speech that she says unlawfully incites violence.

That's what they've already supposed to have been doing. Speech that unlwafully incites violence is already illegal.

[–] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Oh, like all those conservatives that called for civil war and all those conservatives that went into the doxxing site and then proceeded to make death threats against those who were on the list?

She's doing just that right? Right?

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

When are they going to arrest Taco for inciting J6?

Guess they need to arrest the bots on /r/conservative

[–] Hayduke@lemmy.world 12 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

So…. Lemme understand this. Outright saying crazy hateful stuff is hunky dory, but correctly attributing/quoting those statements is potentially punishable at the federal level?

...the fuck?

They’re all mixed up, like pasta primavera.

[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Hey Pammy, you know that if you selectively target people for investigation/prosecution for other things based on their speech, you are still violating their constitutional rights, right? First amendment retaliation is adverse actions taken to deter or punish the exercise of your first amendment rights. You don't have to prosecute the speech itself to violate the constitution if you are specifically targeting legal action against people because of their speech. It still chills free speech.

[–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 days ago

Fucking LOL!

Yeah. I believe that exactly as much as everything else you and your fascist compatriots have said.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Man, she must have a wicked case of whiplash, right about now.

[–] whiwake@lemmy.cafe 3 points 2 days ago

They just all suffered from short-term memory loss

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

This is exactly what liberals wanted when they passed the earliest hate speech legislation in the 90's.
Truly a leopards eating my face moment.

Hate speech, to them, is speech that would make anyone critical of the right. Frankly, they should shut the hell up then.

[–] Nagrom@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 days ago

They’re eating the cats and dogs

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 2 points 2 days ago