‘Elon Musk loves free speech, but only when it’s convenient for him and his far-right political agenda,’ says founder of Progress Action Fund

The ad in question is here.

    • nzodd@beehaw.orgEnglish
      41·
      11 months ago

      Turns out Fascists only like free speech when it gives them a chance to talk freely about genocide. But then it’s “how dare you teach my children about human rights and good touch/bad touch, off to the gulag for you.”

  • circularfish@beehaw.orgMEnglish
    40·
    11 months ago

    But anti-vax misinformation , which literally kills people, is perfectly fine.

    This guy likes to portray himself as a rationalist and a free thinker, but he is nothing more than a scared man-child willing to pander to the dregs of society just for $8 and a dose of validation.

    The sooner this festering boil of a social media site implodes, the better.

  • FoxBJKEnglish
    21·
    11 months ago

    Anyone in Ohio who might be seeing this post - vote no on issue 1. We don’t need supermajorities to pass amendments. 50%+1 is plenty!

  • LegendofDragoon@kbin.social
    16·
    11 months ago

    This law is obviously just an attempt to get a case that can strike down Griswold at the corrupt, illegitimate supreme court. They know it will get challenged, it’s exactly what they want.

    • maynarkh@feddit.nl
      6·
      11 months ago

      As a foreigner, this thing with the US where there are no laws for pretty basic stuff like abortion and contraceptives, just random USSC cases somehow divining these judgements from entirely unrelated stuff, how many layers does this go down? Do you guys have actual laws? Is murder actually illegal by law signed by elected officials, or is it just a random precedent that a bunch of unelected loons getting in the USSC for life can unravel?

      Serious question, did the US actually outlaw segregation, or is it coming up next?

      • LegendofDragoon@kbin.social
        8·
        11 months ago

        To your last point, Brown Vs. The Board of Education prevents racial segregation in schools, Loving vs. Virginia prevents state laws against interracial marriages, and Atlanta Hotel Vs. The US was the landmark finding that upheld the legitimacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, specifically the clause that prevents businesses from discriminating based on protected classes.

        So to answer your question at large, we DO have actual laws on the books that are supposed to protect historically targeted minorities, but at any moment these rogue malefactors could declare any one of those laws unconstitutional as they’ve shown they have NO regard for precedent.

      • PostmodernPythia@beehaw.org
        6·
        11 months ago

        Basic rights for people who aren’t white dudes were mostly imposed by court order. That’s the reality. We have laws, it’s just that those laws were written at a time when personhood didn’t really apply to anyone who wasn’t a white man. And if no one who you consider a full person is capable of being pregnant, you’re not going to think to put in a right to abortion explicitly, even if it’s a basic requirement for equal citizenship for the female sex, because women (and trans people) aren’t really people…and so on.

        Edit: I realize this is mostly due to the weird semi-religious fervor Americans have for our Constitution and government system.

        TL; DR: We’re running Modern Democracy 1.0 with a Frankenstein covering of patches, while other countries just upgrade whenever they need you.

  • sharpiemarker@feddit.de
    8·
    11 months ago

    Somehow photos and videos of child abuse get left up for days but a political ad about consenting adults gets taken down immediately.

    Shocking…