all 33 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 24 points 1 month ago (1 child)

Do it anyways, if they take ABC down then sue them for free speech amendment violations.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 1 month ago

    Kinda stupid that they don't just use James Talarico's name in the article title.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago

    Won't air interview because ABC caved.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago

    Good interview, highly recommend checking it out on YouTube

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (27 children)

    If the next president doesn't wipe Fox News off the map I will be pissed

  • source
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (25 children)

    Your solution to the federal government infringing on first amendment rights is for the federal government to continue infringing on first amendment rights?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 25 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

    I hear you but when one side refuses to follow established law and suffers no consequences, it's playing a loser's game It will be fucking ugly but we probably have to finish the civil war since it was allowed to fester and grow and here we are in 2026 with a mockery of a government system.

    Continuing on and expecting something to change in a completely rigged game is insane .

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    not the OP but i don't agree with your premise.

    Fox has broken the social contract and as Popper pointed out, if you allow. intolerance to prosper, you get... an intolerant society.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (20 children)

    You're claiming that large corporations should have first amendment rights?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (19 children)

    I'm claiming people should have first amendment rights. Corporations are a collection of people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (18 children)

    And we circle back to exactly the sort of dipshit rationale that has fucked the us over for so long.

    Corporations are not individuals. They do not get the rights that humans do. The end.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (17 children)

    I just double checked the first amendment and try as I might I couldn't find the word "individuals" anywhere. I did see "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" though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago* (16 children)

    Probably because they thought nobody would be stupid enough to expect that it applied to organizations.

    You're just essentially arguing that citizens united was a good thing. Which is reprehensively stupid.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (15 children)

    If you want to control speech you're no better than maga. I dont care what kind of excuses or justifications you come up with. You and all the other authoritarians can fuck off.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (14 children)

    Lol. Fuck no. I'm an authoritarian for disagreeing with the logic that brought us citizens fucking United?

    Man, Lemmy is remarkable today.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (13 children)

    You're an authoritarian for advocating congressional infringement of speech. The only difference between you and MAGA is the justifications you come up with.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (12 children)

    I can do much worse. I also don't believe that the building a business is housed in does not deserve free speech.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (11 children)

    Don't you have some books to burn adolf?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (10 children)

    I also don't think birds should have free speech. Fuck those guys.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (9 children)

    You're entitled to your opinion. But here in reality, the first amendment doesn't apply to birds. It doesn't apply to corporations. It doesn't apply to people. It applies to Congress, and describes things that they are not allowed to abridge. If you hate the first amendment so much, petition to change it. Nobody can legally stop you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (8 children)

    It doesn't apply to corporations.

    This has been the perfect Lemmy conversation because you finally circled back around to negating the point that you originally made and have been defending so vehemently.

    Nice work.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    Bullshit, I've been consistent. The amendment applies to Congress. It prohibits the government from restricting speech. It doesn't specify whose speech. They're not allowed to restrict anyone's. If you ever bothered to read it, the wording makes that pretty clear. All 10 amendments in the bill of rights are structured that way.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (6 children)

    Corporate speech doesn't apply and is restricted all of the time

    Why? Because our rights protect people. Corporations should be classified differently.

    Btw, I'm now ordering the restriction of free speech for autobots. And you cant stop me. Lol.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (5 children)

    If you want the government to act without limits entirely based on vibes you must love the current administration.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    You may be right. Corporations may actually constitute individual people, given your willingness to suck their dicks.

    Corporate entities are not individuals and have different rights and responsibilities.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (3 children)

    I checked the first amendment again and nope, still doesn't say anything about individuals. Still says "Congress shall make no law".

    Your pal trump, who is currently abridging the ABC corporation's right to free speech using essentially the same rationale as you, is going to lose his lawsuit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    You do realize that you're vouching for Trump right now. Corporations are the people period. The moment we start elevating corporations to having lights, we're going to immediately diminish ours.

    You act like you're fighting for the people's rights, but you're doing the contrary. Right now you're just sucking corporate dick.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • 8 comments in c/fediverse_vs_disinfo@lemmy.dbzer0.com view that post
    [–] 21 points 1 month ago (4 children)
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago* (3 children)

    I swear, Talarico has had more publicity because of the attempt to stop his segments from airing. Just like with Stephen Colbert.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

    Talarico is 100% perfect to represent Texas and if he wins, this will be a call out to all of the other red states to have more people like Talarico. He's very religious, but that's why the red states will love him. All of this attention is probably scaring the shit out of the magas. Trump has to win and why trump is saying to cheat. They're desperate at this point and don't really see streisand effects as a thing, for some reason. See reflecting pool.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago

    His version of religion is the proper one, in my opinion. I'm not in Texas, so I can't vote for him, but hearing him talk about his religion just proves that the hateful bigots are just using it as an excuse for their disgusting rhetoric and actions. I feel like he's a good person who is religious, vs a bad person who thinks they're good because of religion.

  • source
  • parent
  • This is the same federal government that's now offering (non-existent) $5,000 checks to elect them.

    So yeah, this sucks, but it's sort of small fries when democracy is clearly already dead.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    I wonder if they could have gotten away with a dramatic interpretation of the interview with puppets or something. Do some malicious compliance.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago*

    Freedom of the press strikes again.

  • source