• desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    12 hours ago

    because one side is prioritizing democratic principles and the other is making an argument that could be related to the first amendment. Twitter absolutely isn’t doing this for any good reason, but the argument could be used for one.

    • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      12 hours ago

      If you have to tell deliberate lies to influence people then that isn’t democracy. That’s fascism or at least a kakistocracy - the worst and stupidest rule because they can’t get elected otherwise. Fuck twisting the First Amendment into a tool of lies and corruption.

      • desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        the problem I have is that the law (609.772) appears to not only apply to political content, but all content that is

        "so realistic that a reasonable person would believe it depicts speech or conduct of an individual who did not in fact engage in such speech or conduct; " and made without consent and wintin 90 days of political party conventions or after absentee voting starts.

        By the way it is written the “presidents play Minecraft” series which most informed people would fully understand was not made my any presidents would likely fall under this law.

      • nomy@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 hours ago

        I propose for every lie someone tells, we (we’ll vote on who) gets to punch them in the face.