politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Why do you think there would a formal revocation of free speech if US did slide into authoritarian, non-democratic rule? This seems counter inuitive. Why bring attention to such a topic if your goal is limiting free speech, surely you would use other more subtle methods to achieve such a goal (again this topic is well researched and you can easily find out how it works if you are actually acting in good faith). Russia (and I believe even China) formally has free speech.
And what makes you think people in the US would oppose trump jailing political opponents (or let alone have the capability do anything about it)? No one is going to openly say that person X is going to jail because he opposes Trump/his backers. You would find some other reason that is easy to market to local plebs? No?
Am I being unreasonable in my line of thinking?
Exactly u would be way morw subtle like pressuring all the social media sites where a majority of conversation takes place to remove certain information.
What do u think trumps felonies are? Attempts to jail a political opponent? Righfully earned for hiding the fact he paid of a hooker? Didnt Arnold Schwarzenegger do the same thing?
Not at all u just need to make the final connection
I am not really sure how this relates to what we were discussing. Let's add say leftists, Biden, Harris, anyone you want, to the list of authoritarians and oppose free speech. Let's just close this piece for a second.
Why would you assume that limitations on free speech would be done via a formal, well publicized revocation of a constitution article (from my experience living in the US, polemics around constitution are extremely common when compared to other countries)? Surely if that was your goal, you would use methods that provide a veneer of deniability and you would use roundabout methods (de facto instead of de jure). So how would you even come to the conclusion that free speech is being limited if it is clear that this would be done with the explicit goal of trying to convince people that free speech is not being trampled on?
OK, same thing. Let's just say Trump is innocent of any and all issues, it's all his political opponents.
Why do you think the prosecution of opponents by a regime would be done in the open and in a manner that would make it clear that this is happening? What benefit would the side implementing such initiatives have from doing this in the open, in a way that can be easily noted by the general public? Do you not agree that in the early stages of transition to an autocratic, non-democratic regime it makes more sense to use alternative methods that can convince your own supporters that you are doing the right thing? If it makes it easier, let's even forget Trump. Just base discussion that can apply to a country's political sphere (be it in the US or otherwise).
What connection am I supposed to make. Even if I agree with your arguments regarding prosecution of Trump and leftists limiting free speech, I don't see what this to with points I am bringing (which I tried to present in a more generic manner).
You can think Americans are inherently immune to the points I raised. Fine, I obviously disagree (I lived in the US and many other countries, so it would not be possible for me to agree to such a claim), but then you should be explicit about this. State it clearly, if that's what you believe.