Even the fascists loved art in the 1930s and 1940s. They just used it for their own ends. Goebbels knew how vital art was all too well.
These fascists are too stupid to understand that they could actually use public arts funding that way thankfully. This might be a better result in some ways.
An official at the hospital in Yinchuan in Ningxia Hui autonomous region, northwestern China, said the fee was for two days’ use of a chair by the patient who was sitting on it while receiving an infusion.
$0.70 is a heck a lot cheaper than the consultation fees you get charged in a government subsidized medical institution in Singapore.
“If this banner was a blank banner, we wouldn’t be here,” said Gens. “If it said ‘Support Our Troops’ we probably wouldn’t be here. If it said ‘Black Lives Matter’ we wouldn’t be here, because this gives way to all sorts of selective enforcement.”
I see that “if things were different, they would be different” remains a standard for racists and their defenders.
I love how tame those examples are. None of them are targeting groups negatively, it’s a completely different “type” of banner. Even if it said “Support white people in new england”, it wouldn’t be going to court.
Except in this case, it is directly relevant to the legal issue at hand. When deciding a free speach case, the first part of the analysis is if the restriction is content neutral or not.
A content neutral rule is held to the standard of intermintent scrutiny, and is frequently upheld. A content based rule is held to the standard of strict scrutiny and almost always struck drown.
If the rule against signs on the overpass were enforced uniformly, then the white supremesists would not have a legal leg to stand on. But, at least based on the article, the rule is not being enforced uniformly at all; and is only being brought up now due to the content of the speech. That puts it squarly in the realm of strict scrutiny; giving the government a very uphill battle in court.
“White supremacist banners get taken down more often than other banners” isn’t actually evidence of unequal enforcement, because white supremacist banners almost certainly get reported to the cops immediately by a lot of people, whereas other banners are largely ignored if they aren’t offensive. Especially because it’s entirely legal to put up banners if you have a permit, so people have no reason to call the cops every time they see a banner.
I’m very much a laymen, and this is purely my opinion, but this whole idea that people can say whatever they want because of freedom of speech is bullshit. I get it’s nuanced: you’re free to say what you want, but not free from the consequences. Blah blah blah. Problem is, no one can agree on the consequences. People like this can continue to spew their hurtful hate left and right, and nothing is done to them to punish them for their obvious intolerance. Meanwhile, the people that are affected by this vitriolic bullshit have to keep looking over their shoulders every damn day of their lives waiting for the inevitable escalation that will come.
When people say freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences, they mean consequences like ostracization, shunning, getting fired. That sort of thing.
I think the banner here would qualify as free speech, but I think they also were made to take it down because they didn’t have a permit or something. And the people involved should certainly be given societal consequences.
Oh, it’s totally freedom of speech. But freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom to broadcast your speech on public property without exception.
If they hung the banner on their house or private property, there would be nothing to be done to stop them.
But you can’t hang a banner from the governments property without their permission, which must be given in a manner impartial to the content on the banner beyond any compelling interests like “no hanging very distracting banners where it could cause accidents”.
They didn’t ask, so they can have their banner removed just as though they hung it from the flagpole in front of the courthouse.
They’re being prosecuted because a racial component to a crime is an aggravating factor that makes it more appealing to prosecutors.
So their claim is entirely correct: they’re being prosecuted because their crime was minor but made worse by being racist. We’ve already decided that it’s reasonable for the government to be particularly harsh on racist crimes because it singles out a type of behavior that’s particularly harmful to society.
Most places have freedom of speech up until it becomes hates speech or makes someone a target. Technically the US intended something similar, and it all went to fuck when one political party made it its entire stategy. Hate and disinformation are basically the only cards the conservatives have.
“You have your tax dollars being given in grants to things like the Fringe Festival, which is like a sexual festival where they’re doing all this stuff,” DeSantis said during a Thursday press conference, according to the Tampa Bay Times.
Hmm, I wonder what kinds of “sexual stuff” he’s referring to.
the Tampa Bay Times reports that the governor’s spokespeople did not respond to questions about specific events he found objectionable.
Oh.
Florida Rep. Anna Eskamani (D), who attended this year’s Orlando Fringe festival, told the Times that she saw nothing “sexual” at the festival.
“It does feature drag queens and other forms of artistic expression that DeSantis has wanted to censor despite courts telling him otherwise!” Eskamani said.
So a man dressing in women’s clothes is an inherently sexual act, according to these sexually repressed freaks.
Remember the 2020 convention where none of the “hot” voices in the party were given speaking spots and the key note was like a dozen different politicians all giving part of a speech, guaranteeing that none of them would have an Obama moment?
And then how throughout Biden’s term the two competitors in his administration (Harris and Buttigieg) we basically only brought out for damage control and no-win policies Biden didn’t want to be tarnished with? Harris has always been a weak candidate, but being given the task of fixing voting rights and the southern border was just sabotaging the presumed heir apparent.
They’re not even just trying to keep the party moderate, they don’t want to even let any other moderates build a stature. Everything has been in service of our elderly leader. Who cares what happens after him, the consultants will have already cashed out and rotated back to business, and the party leadership was also all old as fuck.
Really hoping it dissipates quickly. Any islands in the path of hurricane that intensifies are bad news. I survived a Category 5 Maria in 2017. Took years to recover. Thanks La Niña. 🙄
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.