937
Limited Freedom (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by when@lemmy.world to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] FreakinSteve@lemmy.world 10 points 2 hours ago

Hey big shoutout to all the Redditors and Lemmy guys who told me that we can have no restrictions on free speech because if we restrict Nazis they will restrict us if they ever gain power.

Welp, here ya go...like I told you...and many of you blocked and/or banned me for saying it. Ironic.

[-] Ledericas@lemm.ee 2 points 1 hour ago

i felt like the trolls on reddits are just RU stoking anger and division.

[-] ArchRecord@lemm.ee 3 points 2 hours ago

You'll never easily get through to those people. They hold idealism over material reality in many cases.

The best way I've found to get even some of them to at least stop and think for a minute is to ask if preventing people from doing things like:

  1. Screaming slurs next to a preschool
  2. Publishing deliberately false information to ruin someone's reputation
  3. Doxxing someone who was mean to you

...is justified. If they say yes, then maybe unlimited free speech isn't perfect, and restricting Nazis could be justified. If they say no, then you'll know they're a lost cause.

[-] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

Is the problem the speech or the people tbat speak it?

[-] Oggyb@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

Great question. Intention matters, so many countries focus on speech that can only be malicious, like incitement to violence in the UK or Nazi salutes in Germany.

[-] LeFantome@programming.dev 43 points 10 hours ago

If you make the 1st Amendment illegal, the rest of the Constitution cannot be far behind.

[-] pyre@lemmy.world 16 points 9 hours ago

if? people have already been blackbagged for their speech. this is just encoding something already in effect.

[-] Charlxmagne@lemmy.world 34 points 10 hours ago

How tf can u ban a boycott, how is that even possible let alone provable 🤦 Politics aside if I js don't like a brand that endorses or has ties to Israel would I then be subject to charges. How u trynna force people to buy from certain companies, what if I was bruk, would I be breaking the law? 🤡

[-] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago

Excuse me I saw you drinking flat water where is your soda stream ice this one get this one

[-] Ledericas@lemm.ee 1 points 1 hour ago

it will probably use to target protestors, and groups criticial of israel.

[-] DoubleSpace@lemm.ee 19 points 7 hours ago

This will probably be used to target protestors and organizers of political movements.

[-] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 7 points 7 hours ago

Yeah, the boycott itself can't reasonably be prosecuted. But it can be used to suppress discussion (e.g. organization, coordination) of said boycott.

[-] RedFrank24@lemmy.world 13 points 10 hours ago

Is that legal? It doesn't sound legal. I'm sure they could make it illegal for US government agencies to boycott Israel because that's at least partially a foreign policy decision, but private businesses? What are they gonna do, force you to buy Israeli goods?

[-] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 12 points 8 hours ago

narrator: it didn't sound legal because it wasn't.

[-] heyWhatsay@slrpnk.net 14 points 10 hours ago

Incremental steps into the police state.

[-] SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world 10 points 8 hours ago

We are in a police state. This is more.

[-] AngrySquirrel@lemm.ee 47 points 13 hours ago

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

[-] nickiwest@lemmy.world 5 points 7 hours ago

And the USSC has definitely ruled that money is equivalent to speech. So boycott activity is logically covered under this Amendment.

If this law passes, a lot of people are going to have a rough year or two until they can get a case all the way to the Supreme Court.

[-] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 20 points 12 hours ago

Because republicans care so much about laws they don't agree with.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org 36 points 15 hours ago

How do I boycott Israel in the first place? Not booking my next vacation there? Do I get 20 years in prison for that?

[-] Splenetic@lemm.ee 15 points 12 hours ago

It seems like theatre. How will you ever prove that I chose Burger King over McDonalds for political reasons?

[-] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 2 points 7 hours ago

I don't eat meat. BK has Impossible burgers and McD's doesn't. Of course they've been coming after synthetic meat too in some places. They're throwing a fit because a single-digit % of the population had the audacity to opt out of eating meat derived from animals.

[-] TheDoozer@lemmy.world 5 points 5 hours ago

I am not vegan or vegetarian, but I still prefer Impossible burgers (and Impossible chicken patties) and Beyond Steak bites. Not only does it at least significantly reduce my meat consumption, it is generally better than the real meat, since it doesn't have any weird bits and is lower in bad cholesterol. Also, it makes it so the meat I do eat can be sourced more ethically (buying direct from the rancher, hunting and fishing my own for subsistence, getting free range eggs especially from locals) instead of getting the final product and just ignoring what torture went into it.

[-] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 20 points 14 hours ago

https://bdsmovement.net/Act-Now-Against-These-Companies-Profiting-From-Genocide

Whatever the legal status of officially boycotting Isreal, there's still no law against just incidentally not doing business with the companies.

Before someone says they can't avoid some of these: OK, then boycott the other ones.

Whatever sand you have to throw, throw it in the gears of genocide. Don't just do nothing.

[-] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 9 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

The Constitution says there's also no law against actively and loudly not doing business with the companies

[-] sabo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 12 hours ago

disoccupied.com

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] RidderSport@feddit.org 15 points 13 hours ago

Wait you first blame us for not having free speach, because lying about the holocaust is illegal and now you ban boycotting Israel for engaging in a de facto genocide?

[-] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 15 points 13 hours ago

Well, we now know what death cult is behind the misery of literally the entire world.

[-] FreakinSteve@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

Irony: Nazis are teaching the rest of us who hate Nazis how to hate the Jews

[-] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 64 points 17 hours ago

Didn't CU rule that spending money is free speech? So isn't compelling the spending of money compelling speech? Sounds straight up unconstitutional.(as if that fucking matters these days)

[-] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 65 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

Rich people spending money is free speech.

Anti-genocide activists not spending money is terrorism.

AKA the usual.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 04 May 2025
937 points (100.0% liked)

Political Memes

7966 readers
2060 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS