Free speech advocates fear a new bill could let the Secretary of State strip passports from US citizens based on their speech. "Rubio has claimed the power to designate people terrorist supporters based solely on what they think and say," one said.

all 29 comments

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

"If you don't like America, then you can get out!"

Proceeds to take their passport so they can't leave. 🤷🏻‍♂️

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 19 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    If anyone survives the regime, we should make sure to have the brains of these authoritarians studied. There's something going on that has damaged them to the point of losing their humanity.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    PSA: Trans people can currently get and use passports in m, f, or Gender X, but it requires an extra form.

    https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/passports/passport-help/sex-marker.html

  • source
  • [–] 28 points 1 year ago

    DONT WORRY! The people who DEFEND School Shooters because of the Constitution will be OUT IN THE STREETS Protesting this! OTHERWISE that would mean they ONLY LIKE SCHOOL SHOOTERS and that would be WRONG!

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    They always mention rumeysa ozturk but never link the article she wrote

    She didnt even write an op ed demanding the school divest from israel. She wrote an op ed saying the student body deliberated and voted on three different proposals, with two being passed by a majority, which the school was supposedly obligated to hear.

    The school refused to hear the proposals after the students voted for it and she wrote the op ed to point out that it was antidemocratic to refuse to act on behalf of those paying to attend.

    For that speech she was arrested by masked agents and held in detention for months without proper access to medical care or dietary accommodations.

    This is now being extended to american citizens, ordained by law.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    yet another confession that the government is tracking and indexing everything to an individual profile for every citizen.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I would say that this would backfire on Republicans if a Democrat got back into office but honestly the unintended consequences would be very limited.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • Yeah, I don’t think the dems are winning anything anymore. This regime will make sure of that. If it isn’t via outright autocracy by preventing dems from running or eliminating the vote, it’ll be via threatening the voters themselves.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago
    [–] 1 point 1 year ago (12 children)

    This bill, like many equally bad bills, will be inevitabily be killed by a Democratic filibuster.

    Remember that if you are among those who think the filibuster should be abolished.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    This bill, like many equally bad bills, will be inevitabily be killed by a Democratic filibuster.

    Democrats haven't filibustered shit this year.

    You know this and love that the filibuster is used almost exclusively to block the progressive legislation you don't want.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (9 children)

    This year Democrats filibustered an anti-trans bill, an anti-choice bill, and countless parts of the OBBB. You know this but prefer to complain about the only people who have done anything to stop MAGA.

    When - not if - this bill dies, you can thank Democrats.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (8 children)

    You know, it's odd. OBBB passed.

    When this bill also passes, you'll thank democrats for blocking it no matter what the actual facts are. Because you like how the filibuster blocks progressive legislation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (7 children)

    Many parts of the OBBB were deemed subject to filibuster, and therefore didn't pass.

    If it weren't for Democratic filibuster, all of these parts of the OBBB would have passed.

    • Ban the use of Medicaid funds for gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors and adults

    • Restrict coverage of abortions in many Obamacare plans

    • Tax credit for contributions made to organizations that provide money for children to attend private schools

    • Limit on income-driven student loan repayment options.

    • Prohibit loan payments made while students are in medical or dental internships or residencies from counting toward forgiveness

    • Authority for state and local officials to arrest noncitizens suspected of being unlawfully present in the U.S.

    • Limit on preliminary injunctions or temporary restraining orders by requiring litigants to post potentially large bonds.

    • Repeal of an E.P.A. regulation limiting vehicle emissions

    • Automatic compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act for oil and gas lease sales

    • Elimination of the Office of Financial Research funding

    • Elimination of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board

    • Requirement that electric vehicles used by the Postal Service are sold

    And that's only a partial list of what Democrats successfully filibustered.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Uh huh. OBBB still passed. Because it wasn't something truly heinous to democrats, like raising the minimum wage.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    To repeat:

    This year Democrats filibustered an anti-trans bill, an anti-choice bill, and countless parts of the OBBB

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

    At this point, I'd like a source for democrats filibustering an anti-trans bill and an anti-choice bill.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Thank you. I was wrong. democrats are occasionally willing to use the filibuster instead of just letting republicans use it to block things democrats ran on but never had any intention of passing. Now, how many times did republicans use the filibuster during biden's first 9 months in office?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    I don't know, because filibusters are also an implicit threat. Plenty of bills from both parties never even come to vote because both sides know they will be filibustered.

    When the majority allows a successful filibuster vote like those above, it's because the majority wanted to put the minority "on the record", for example as pro-trans.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    When the majority allows a successful filibuster vote like those above, it’s because the majority wanted to put the minority “on the record”, for example as pro-trans.

    And how many times did that happen during the first 9 months of the biden administration?

  • source
  • parent
  • 51 comments in c/politics@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 113 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Um, this literally goes entirely against 1st Amendment. That's literally all about free speech. To be able to comment or criticize politicians and politics without government retaliating. And now they want to do that exactly. These fuckers straight want a dictatorship.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 50 points 1 year ago

    The courts have been cancelled so do not expect them to defend the constitution. Even if they do they will allow loopholes to allow it anyway, as preposterous as their reasoning will be.

    It is clear they are idealogues on the courts, but also that they are compromised by the admin, career ending dirt on them. Just like the borgia pope appointing compromised cardinals, and compromising existing ones with prostitutes.

    Earning himself the nickname of the whoremaster of rome. Borgia pope is early 16th century, that machavelli's the prince was based on.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 87 points 1 year ago (5 children)
  • [–] 55 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    It was the same back then. Years ago, a Vietnam Vet Draftee told me that he never understood why he was fighting in Vietnam, until he had to run an errand back to the port where supplies were coming in. He saw them unloading entire cargo ships of Budweiser beer, and he instantly understood why the war was dragging on - it was good for business.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    I watched Superman: Red Son last night. Throughout the entire movie I was wondering what the plot resolution would be.

    In it, Stalin is enriching himself while killing millions (just like real life). Superman finds it appalling that Stalin's only response is "it's necessary." In the US, Lex Luthor is doing typical capitalist bullshit just getting rich and getting power.

    But LEX LUTHOR ends up doing it all for altruistic reasons because even Superman can't create a perfect society without harming dissenters. At the end, instead of continuing the altruistic steps, he steps down from power for his VP to do it and fucks off to a private island with billionaire stuff.

    What I got out of it? Capitalism good, it saves you from gulag and brain control devices. And billionaires will save you.

    War is GREAT for business.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    Perhaps we can at least say that your heart was in the right place depending on your personal goals. It’s even possible that your work bought additional time which does matter even though ultimately we had the current collapse.

    I don’t think it’s all bad. But it’s definitely a shame that we’re at this point.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 69 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    This won't pass the Senate, but it shows why if we're able to wrest power back from the Confederates they can never gain power again. Each time they move the Overton window right, and next time they'd just pick up right where they left off. That's why it's all the more important that we elect progressives—to drag the window back to the left.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    How do you propose confederates not gaining power when their ideas are not only popular but celebrated and worshipped?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Their ideas aren't popular, Trump won because the economy sucks the Democratic party sucks and the media sucks. Fix any of those three problems up a bit and they lose.

    All easier said than done, but let's define the problem properly. It isn't that people on average are bad and can't handle democracy, it's that our systems are bad and manipulating people into supporting bad things.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Xenophobia seems pretty popular.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Eh. Trump was able to make a very specific and tangible case to his voters for how he was going to directly improve their lives. Kamala was completely unwilling to do that. That's why she lost.

    Trump's plan was evil, but it was clear and direct. His message was "I will deport a bunch of immigrants and slap up tariffs. This will make it easier for you to get a job and buy a home." It's a cynical, evil, and short-sighted plan, but it was actually a plan to directly improve the living standards of working class Americans.

    What was Kamala's equivalent? Nothing. She had some vague language about a tax credit that would just inflate the housing bubble higher, and she took the usual idiot liberal approach of attaching dozens of strings that made it so only select marginalized people would qualify for it. Kamala offered nothing. People were hurting, and she offered them nothing. She didn't lose because of Gaza, no matter what Republican trolls on Lemmy like to say. She lost because she was unable to make a clear and specific case about how she was going to help the people that voted for her. Her only real core message was the defense of democracy, but it turns out that people see little reason to support a democracy that will do nothing to actually advance their interests.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Kamala failed in every way, imo, except wooing the farther-right. DNC sued to keep Claudia off the ballot in swing states --they knew they weren't going to win against her! And now they're suing to keep a Green mayoral candidate off the ballot. Lemmy libs act like South Carolina libs, which is pretty left except they "wisely" want conservative Dems on the ballot to win, and that hasn't worked since Clinton. The only reason Biden won't was because he wasn't the other guy, and failed the lower middle and underclass so badly, "not the other guy" will never win again, for less conservative libs of either party.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 46 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Doesnt this clearly violate the 1st amendment?

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    The Constitution doesn't matter anymore.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I see the value in documenting the ways it’s being violated, but every time I hear someone shocked because “they can’t do that” I’m reminded of how we got here. The only law and rule that matters is what is physically possible

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago*

    Fun Fact: Freedom of Speech is "guaranteed" in the Constitution of PRC.

    https://english.www.gov.cn/archive/lawsregulations/201911/20/content_WS5ed8856ec6d0b3f0e9499913.html

    Article 35 Citizens of the People’s Republic of China shall enjoy freedom of speech, the press, assembly, association, procession and demonstration.

    Guess how that's going.

    (I mean you do have freedom of speech, you can say whatever you want, just not freedom after speech)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 38 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Just like China, well done magats. You are the thing you hate

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The thing they claim to hate, while secretly admiring it (or not so secretly)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago*

    "When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it. Then they were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength. Our country is right now perceived as weak." -donald trump

    didnt even tried to hide it

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 34 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 29 points 1 year ago

    Yeah this just shows you don't have any rights. You have temporary, revocable privileges, depending on the whims of those exercising power.

  • source
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    These republicans, like Charlie Kirk, wrap themselves in Christianity but are the least Christ-like people on the planet. These same frauds tout their patriotism, and stoke national identity while throwing the founding document and our foundational rights, and the rule of law out the window at every opportunity they find to seize power and profit.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Most conservatives worship Satan. They're literally devil-worshipers. If your religion leads you to hate, you are not worshiping a benevolent god, you're worshiping the Devil. Charlie Kirk was a devil worshiper and he's now joined his master, where he will burn in the fires of Hell for all the misery he brought down upon his innocent victims. All billionaires go to Hell. Most Republicans go to Hell. Any "Christian" that preaches hate is bound for the the Pit.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago

    Lmao turns out it was never about free speech at all. Just about control and power. Shocked

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago

    "Free speech absolutists", everyone.

    I'm sure Musk and other people that were outraged over things like Hunter's hard drive, oops, I mean "laptop" and social media/news outlets will be all over this, right? The people that were parroting mindless talking points about Confederates being "shadow banned" on a private platform.

    Right?

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    So they want to keep people who say things they don't like IN the country now? I'll never understand the Bizarro world we live in.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    Another day another treason 🥱

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    Please read H.R. 5300, SEC. 226. NO PASSPORTS FOR TERRORISTS AND TRAFFICKERS

    https://midwest.social/post/35310527

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    @MicroWave Now there's a twist to "free speech"!

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • 1 comment in c/lefty_news@ibbit.at view that post

    Oh it makes plenty of sense...from a certain point of view. Can't let due process get in the way of freedom. Don't think about it too hard. Just trust the process. Stay the course.

  • source