310

“More attempts to chill free speech in the ‘free’ State of Florida,” said one Democratic lawmaker.

all 47 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Theprogressivist@lemmy.world 116 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Man, bigots are the biggest fucking babies. Love to dish it, but can't take it when someone calls them out for being bigots. They have such a weird fetish for victimization.

[-] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 90 points 10 months ago

As a white person who's worked in blue collar industries, I've often had discussions with other (usually white) co-workers about "why do black people get so upset about the N-word, it's just a word, you can call me anything you want and I won't care".

Through much trial and error, I eventually discovered that "Okay, Colonizer" was a very effective way to challenge that assertion, though it was usually met with "BUT THAT'S DIFFERENT >:{" rather than "Oh, I understand now". I'm sure "Okay, racist" would have had a similarly potent effect.

The point that I'm getting at here is that this is basically Florida scrambling to protect white fragility. Laws that protect but don't bind the in group, etc. etc.

[-] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 50 points 10 months ago

It's less to protect white fragility, and more to censor anyone "woke" from talking about racism — same as banning books, changing history, CRT, etc.

It's about implementing fascism.

[-] Kepabar@startrek.website 8 points 10 months ago

In the era of social media it's become common for someone's racism views posted on their personal social media to get forwarded to their professional relationships (employer, clients) leading to fallout, for example.

This is an attempt at stifling that sort of thing. When this first started the people on the receiving end complained about 'freedom of speech'.

They where told freedom of speech isn't freedom of consequences.

This is Floridas attempt at getting rid of the consequences by silencing free speech, ironically.

[-] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Isn't truth a complete defense against defamation? As in, if your statement is provably true then it is by definition not defamation (like, this is why the news makes such heavy use of the word "alleged"). So, for example, forwarding someone's personal social media to their employer couldn't be defamation, presuming you weren't claiming someone else's social media was theirs or something. Always make sure when you dox someone you get the right John Smith, I guess?

[-] Kepabar@startrek.website -4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Yes, truth is a defense.

The grey area this law attempts to exploit is that terms like 'racist' have no absolute definition. The term can be used as a response to anything from 'i don't like Indian food' to 'Hilters views on the aryan race were right'.

Take the Indian food example. If you were you say that, and I called you a racist for it, is that a matter of opinion on my behalf or a fact that is the basis of a defamation suit?

[-] prole@sh.itjust.works 50 points 10 months ago

Ron Desantis is a racist piece of shit.

Sue me motherfucker.

[-] DessertStorms@kbin.social 44 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

As always, racists care more about being called racists than they do about actual racism, and will do anything and everything in their power to avoid being called a racist.
Anything and everything, other than, you know, not being racists, that is..

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 37 points 10 months ago

So, the racism is not the problem, being accused of it is the real problem. That tracks with just how awful the cons have become. It seems that every year, they get worse.

[-] toastus@feddit.de 3 points 10 months ago

I am pretty sure Southpark had an Episode about just that with Randy saying something on a game show...

[-] Pretzilla@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 37 points 10 months ago

Ron DeSantis is a racist. Come at me, motherfuckers. I'm not in Florida.

[-] donescobar@lemmy.world 31 points 10 months ago

The fuck your feelings camp sure doesn’t like their feelings being fucked with

[-] ProfessorProteus@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

It's even worse than that. Stating an obvious fact about someone isn't fucking with their feelings.

Now that I think of it, if they embrace the (accurate) label of "domestic terrorists" then why tf do they get their undies all twisted with being labeled racist?

[-] flipht@kbin.social 6 points 10 months ago

Because they know a lot of people agree with them on individual policy ideas, but if they claim/accept that label in particular, it will alienate the low information people they target.

English only education
Immigration quotas
Policing policy and methods
Incarceration
Tons of other things

All of these have racial implications, and a huge swath of "middle America" will buy into specific stances. Their MO is to get them agreeing on anything, and then gradually ramp up the rhetoric to get them to more extreme views.

As a normal looking white guy, it is shocking the number of times people will say borderline racist things to feel you out. Depending on your immediate response, they will either cloak themselves in whatever plausible deniability they built into their initial comment and stop talking to you, or they'll continue with gradual escalation until you match them, at which point they know they've found a kindred spirit.

[-] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 28 points 10 months ago

Who wants to take bets on this being marked unconstitutional by a state/federal judge? We keep wasting tax payer money and time on the stupidity that is fucking Desantis

[-] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 14 points 10 months ago

Honestly with how some of these laws go, I'm kinda starting to wonder if a better version of our system might be to have any new law automatically sent to a court process to determine constitutionality before it goes into effect, to stop governments from just kinda spamming blatantly unconstitutional laws and causing trouble before courts get involved to stop each one.

[-] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Yarp, and the people who signed said bill/law should be reviewed and possibly automatically impeached to verify if they should be removed from office. It is in their oaths to protect/abide by the constitution, they should know it well enough that it shouldnt be hard to tell mal intent

Edit: I mean imagine someone getting fined $35,000 for calling someone the N word. It would be ludicrous. Yet the idea that if someone accuses you of being someone that uses such speech would get them fined instead is even crazier.

[-] slurpeesoforion@startrek.website 1 points 10 months ago

Heinlein suggested an additional branch of the government similar to Congress with the express mandate of repealing laws and with lower requirements to repeal.

This doesn't solve the constitutional question. And I'm sure it would be packed with career politicians bouncing from chamber to chamber.

On second thought, taking more fuck heads in government may not be such a good idea.

[-] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 23 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

what if they are racist? do we get to prove that in court now? can someone officially be labeled racist, because hey, i had to prove it wasnt just an accusation, its the truth!

[-] Skyrmir@lemmy.world 22 points 10 months ago

This would be tossed out the first time it's challenged. It's entirely for show, as usual.

It's an election year so they're throwing crap like this out to play to the victim complex voters.

[-] SaltySalamander@kbin.social 14 points 10 months ago

Only a bunch of racists would pass a law making it a crime to call them racists. Fucking racists.

[-] TheJims@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago

Democratic Peoples Republic of DeSantistan

[-] Telorand@reddthat.com 6 points 10 months ago

I would be fine to let Florida and Texas become their own countries (with anyone who wants to stay in the US being given a substantial subsidy to move elsewhere).

[-] HopeOfTheGunblade@kbin.social 5 points 10 months ago

I've ever had this thought. The problem is that over time people would be born into those places, and educated into being terrified of other places and "consensual" to their ongoing abuse, and that wouldn't be at all okay.

[-] Zorque@kbin.social 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

So kind of like how it is now?

[-] HopeOfTheGunblade@kbin.social 1 points 10 months ago

Yes, only significantly more so.

[-] Isakk86@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago

Sounds like a bunch of racists

[-] shalafi@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

I'm of two minds about reporting this sort of thing.

On one hand, it's a fucking joke. State legislators can submit any damned bill they please. Shit like this has 0% of even coming to a vote. It's performative for the hometown voters.

OTOH, heysus christos, this is batshit insane and should see the light of day.

[-] 900footjesus@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

You left out "never" in that last sentence

[-] ook_the_librarian@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

This could work. I call a media figure racist. Five media outlets claim "Well, they're the real racist." Net $140,000.

[-] SaltySalamander@kbin.social 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

The state nets $175k, you don't net $140k.

[-] ook_the_librarian@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

It's cool. I'm used to not actually getting the money I generated.

And they get $210k. I get penalized in this plan. But, I don't think they they could stop at 5 instances of "they're the real racist" either. This is the state printing money. This is so close to the corruption of biblical tax collectors, it's pretty striking.

(btw I know no court will up hold this. Not even in florida )

[-] moitoi@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 10 months ago

If someone is speaking about the freedom of speech, it's not to save it, it's to kill it.

[-] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 6 points 10 months ago

So theoretically, you could walk up to a black person in the street and call them the n-word to their face and nobody will be able to do anything about it.

Call someone a racist for doing it and get fined $35k.

That seems super logical. /S

[-] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Ok, DeSantis, what would you call someone who says they don't like white people?

Edit: missed a word

[-] minibyte@sh.itjust.works 3 points 10 months ago

Does “facist” count?

[-] groupofcrows@lemmy.ca 3 points 10 months ago

I accused him of being a rice-ist, all rice are the same. /S

[-] snownyte@kbin.social 2 points 10 months ago

I was going to say Florida becoming the butt of jokes in america, but it's already broken the fence down long ago.

Florida is it's own country at this point.

[-] PatFussy@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Under SB 1780, "an allegation that the plaintiff has discriminated against another person or group because of their race, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity constitutes defamation per se." So even when these allegations are false, they are automatically defamatory. Anyone in these circumstances wouldn't have to prove "actual malice," which was a standard set for defamation suits following the decision in the 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case New York Times vs. Sullivan. Additionally, the bill would make it easier to set up the conditions for a fact-finder to automatically infer that actual malice took place after an accusation of discrimination is made.

Edit: hilarious that this got downvoted

[-] alquicksilver@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Florida, taking tips from South Park?

It's no wonder South Park isn't as good as it used to be; the real world is too ridiculous.

[-] NoIWontPickaName@kbin.social 2 points 10 months ago

Those poor fuckers lost it all in 2016

[-] BigMacHole@lemm.ee 0 points 10 months ago

Free Speech!

[-] ivanafterall@kbin.social -1 points 10 months ago

Every single person in this thread is racist.

Come at me.

this post was submitted on 11 Jan 2024
310 points (98.1% liked)

politics

19107 readers
3211 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS