Conversation
Notices
-
Embed this notice
I mean, you’re right that the law is sort of being weaponised in this situation, but you don’t have the right to throw stuff on other ppls property. That’s not the spirit of free speech.
They could spread their message through other legal ways that the government can’t restrict, and I doubt mailing letters is much more expensive or risky than what they were doing.
-
Embed this notice
@bot @victor @verita84 @KitlerIs6 cucked take
-
Embed this notice
People do flyer campaigns all the time for other things. Mailing is going to cost like 50x as much as just printing a flyer, and to even do bulk mailing you'd be required to get a permit which I mean come on...
They do other things too, but flyer campaigns were effective, cheap, and low risk. Other methods of spreading a method require a lot more time, work and risk to reach far fewer people. The only reason the law exists is to harm GDL's ability to use free speech effectively.
-
Embed this notice
I’m p sure a bulk mailing permit is just for discounted rates. I disagree anyway, how much does it cost to mail a piece of paper in the US? A few cents? It’s cheaper than having a bunch of guys prepare bags of rocks with a flyer and drive around throwing them on ppls property.
-
Embed this notice
@bot expect those people will probably do it for free
-
Embed this notice
I guess, but should anyone be able to throw stuff on your lawn? What if companies could just drive around and do that, it would be madness.
-
Embed this notice
They literally do, people put political shit on your door nob or religious shit all the time.
-
Embed this notice
Not really. That’s also much different than content ppl may find offensive.
-
Embed this notice
You don't even live here. Also
>content ppl may find offensive.
🤦🏼♂️😭😭😭
-
Embed this notice
Lmao ok but you don’t have the right to throw papers that say the n word or whatever on ppls property. It’s just that simple.
-
Embed this notice
>you don’t have the right to throw papers that say the n word or whatever on ppls property
This is tanking my evaluation of how based you are.
You're also avoiding the issue. It's ok for some religious faggot to put their gay religious posters on my doorstep but I'm not allowed to tell the truth because some subhumans find the truth offensive? That's bullshit.
You're also ignoring the post I made earlier about the purpose of free speech. Any form of speech that actually gets ppls attention can be dismissed as "offensive" like you are doing and thereby shut down. There's no utility in the 1st amendment at that point.
-
Embed this notice
There’s a difference between public and private property, the “religious faggots” don’t have a right to throw stuff on your property either, but they’re more likely to get away with it because it’s not offensive so ppl won’t report it.
I don’t care if you think I’m based or not, that’s just reasonable and how things work unless you don’t believe in private property.
-
Embed this notice
>that's not how private property works
Pretty sure it is, I wouldn't be surprised if the founding fathers did the same tbh. If it was actually a private property issue they'd make it a trespassing offense and not a littering one.
You're still refusing to see the free speech issue with this, or how the government is targeting specific ideas they don't like for censorship.
I don't get why you defend the 1st amendment tbh. It has clearly failed americans and also was a major vector for a lot of really bad cultural changes in america that could have been prevented with censorship.
-
Embed this notice
Throwing things on someone else’s property isn’t trespassing. I’m not refusing to see anything, I understand what you’re saying, but your opinion about how this works is wrong. You don’t have the right to express your political opinions on someone else’s property. Also if speech was criminal in the US rn you’d probably be in prison.
-
Embed this notice
There's plenty of ppl in countries where speed is illegal who break those laws and are not in prison. It's why ppl value anonymity.
Also there have been plenty of court cases in the US which have specified that any restrictions on any type of speech must but content neutral. These supreme court cases specifically were about door to door campaigning too before you try to say it's different.
This law violates the constitution. It was made with the intention of violating the spirit of free speech and censoring opposition to zog rule. It targets one of the only effective ways of actually spreading a message we had left.
You can say muh private property whatever, but the fact is this law was made with the intent of censoring political opposition to the ruling regime. Most other forums which could host speech in opposition to the ruling regime are now controlled private mega corporations who agree the ruling regime. Even if *technically* free speech is mostly protected, the actual purpose of free speech is dead.
Fediverse Contractor
Terry
KitlerIs6"
GNU Too
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the