• 0 Posts
  • 168 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 10th, 2023

help-circle




  • They ruled that people acting together have all the same rights that they would have acting individually

    Bullshit, corporations are not “people acting together”, they’re autocratic command structures where one or few people hold all the power.

    preventing someone from spending money on producing and promoting their speech effectively prevents them from being heard

    Also total bullshit, unless you agree that allowing people to be poor is a violation of the first amendment, because being poor effectively prevents them from being heard. Which you won’t.

    Which are both perfectly true, common-sense statements

    I’m already confident you don’t have a single ounce of common sense in your empty head after reading those two sentences.


  • They ruled that people acting together have all the same rights that they would have acting individually

    Bullshit, corporations are not “people acting together”, they’re autocratic command structures where one or few people hold all the power.

    preventing someone from spending money on producing and promoting their speech effectively prevents them from being heard

    Also total bullshit, unless you agree that allowing people to be poor is a violation of the first amendment, because being poor effectively prevents them from being heard. Which you won’t.

    Which are both perfectly true, common-sense statements

    I’m already confident you don’t have a single ounce of common sense in your empty head after reading those two sentences.



  • FaeDrifter@midwest.socialtoPrivacy@lemmy.mlPrivacy = no free speech
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    CU vs FEC was specifically about campaign financing, but yeah basically ruled that organizations like corporations are protected by 1A, and money counts as free speech.

    Which is obviously bullshit on every level, but just one way that a SCOTUS with a few corrupt individuals can destroy democracy for an entire country.


  • Like China sucks, but they’re not wrong when they say the US is the most destabilising influence in world politics.

    Oh my god are we really doing this. It’s like an elephant took a shit, and a rhino took a shit, and the rhino says that the elephant shit is going to make a worse sandwich.

    Sure, you could technically argue that the rhino shit is 2% smaller, you’re still shoving a giant rhino shit sandwich in your mouth.

    And “stable/unstable” is not the best metric either. An authoritarian militaristic dictatorship is often more “stable” than a Democracy. You can force stability on a population by taking all their rights away. Doesn’t make it a good thing.