volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@ArenaCops @SrRochardBunson @thejenniwren

Well now you're getting into the differences between laws in different jurisdictions.

In the US it is unconstitutional to criminalize speech period.
But yes, the US has more protections for free speech, including hate speech however that might be defined, than many other countries.

@ArenaCops @SrRochardBunson @thejenniwren

Dogs and cats living together!

I think you have an over estimated opinion as to the power of legal authority (and authoritarianism in general) to make people behave well.

But you also misunderstand a lot of the laws you cite.
For example, you can say anything you want even if you are also held responsible for misleading audiences. That's not a law against speech; it's a likely civil path to recover damages caused by that speech.

But mainly we don't need to promote large amounts of political power out of fear of what might happen should the world not be tightly controlled.

There are dangers down that road.

@antimagaglitterbomb

You specifically said you were talking about a time before the pandemic, so you can't really pivot now and start bringing up the pandemic as factoring into the comparison.

It hadn't happened yet.

We can call out Biden's bad policies regardless of anything involving Trump.

@mekkaokereke

But that's the opposite of his position.

Whether a person agrees with the argument or not, his stances is that some of the material in the course is obscuring Black history by spending course time and resources focusing on other issues like LGBTQ+ interests. He has pushed the College Board to revise the course to focus more solidly on the history of Black communities in the US.

You might reply that LGBTQ+ is part of Black history, and that's fair, but it's important to recognize that DeSantis is actually arguing. Not against Black history but against a course that he believes is insufficiently focused on exactly that.

@shiruken@octodon.social @molly0xfff

*shrug*
Crypto transaction fees can be about the same, or less than, credit card transaction fees.

@adminkirsty

Nope.

@ArenaCops @SrRochardBunson @thejenniwren

If you take the time to read the writings directly from the Founders you'd see that they did indeed intend the 1st Amendment to be just such a safe haven for unpopular speech.

No assumption needed. They said so themselves.

They noticed that it would be dangerous to allow people in power to decide which speech was to be allowed and which speech was to be regulated, as that would involve a conflict of interests, giving the powerful far too much temptation into selfish corruption.

"Congress shall make no law" was put there as a blanket restriction on the powerful to police speech, including and especially such speech that would offend the powerful.

@antimagaglitterbomb

Right, but a president can only use the pandemic to escape accountability for just so many policy missteps.

For example, pandemic or no the guy signed into law spending bills that spent money that didn't exist, not even through financing. The pandemic didn't force him into that!

We need to be holding powerful officials accountable for their behavior in office. We should not be making blanket excuses for them like this.

@disinfodocket

The key that the BBC might not appreciate here is that the congressman was elected by his own constituents to represent them in Congress. It's largely their internal matter, so as long as they think he is doing an okay job representing them, it's really just up to them.

The parliamentary system of government is pretty different from the system in the US, so is the sort of thing that the BBC will often get wrong.

@trask

The problem is that the other side of the story quotes NARA and Justice Department officials as confirming that he DID produce documents when requested, providing the receipts of transferring to documents to the relevant officials.

So this is yet another case of people working from two completely different and irreconcilable sets of facts.

One side accusing the other side of not doing something, and the other side producing the evidence that they did do it.

It's the bizarre world we live in these days.

@wdlindsy

It literally raises taxes on the rich and writes checks to the poor.

People who say it transfers to tax burden to those lease economically equipped sound like they don't know what they're talking about in light of how the proposal actually works.

@WatcherGuru

I really don't know why anybody takes what Jim Cramer says seriously.

He's a funny guy, and he might occasionally have an interesting point, but he's been mainly an entertainer for a long time.

@nikkiana

Sounds like you're just describing a platform that avoids one-size-fits-all solutions.

There are pros and cons to distributed systems, after all.

@wdlindsy

Sure, and the FairTax proposal would do exactly that, doing away with all of the income tax carve outs and mailing checks to the poor to cover their tax burdens.

Republicans have proposed it, but it's never going to gain traction.

@Npars01

Yeah, the fact that he doesn't admit his errors is part of the problem.

All the time I see him saying stuff that doesn't, for example, check out with regard to the actual legislative process in Congress. He'll make comments about how some piece of legislation is doing, comments that don't actually square with the rules of the chamber.

Or he'll talk about something the President has done that is the responsibility of a different branch of government, or he will talk about economic stuff that doesn't reflect the way the Federal Reserve operates, and on and on.

The guy just really doesn't know what he's talking about. He's a comedian. And I'm really disappointed that he doesn't stick to just being a funny guy, that he spends his time spreading false information instead of funny jokes.