this post was submitted on 04 May 2025
1160 points (97.3% liked)

Political Memes

7972 readers
1757 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
1160
Limited Freedom (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 80 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Didn't CU rule that spending money is free speech? So isn't compelling the spending of money compelling speech? Sounds straight up unconstitutional.(as if that fucking matters these days)

[–] [email protected] 3 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

Republicans have been undermining the constitution for decades. Now they straight up wipe their ass with it. The Goal has always been a christofacist dictatorship

[–] [email protected] 1 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

No, Citizens United ruled that corporations are allowed to engage in elections just like citizens. It said nothing about money, protesting, or anything else.

Still not a good ruling for any reason, but not really relevant here.

[–] [email protected] 77 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Rich people spending money is free speech.

Anti-genocide activists not spending money is terrorism.

AKA the usual.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Wait, doesn't your argument support their bill?

They're agreeing with you; they are suggesting that convincing people of what to do with their money is infringing on their "speech."

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

My argument is that republicans are never consistent with their policies.

Spending isn't free speech. The government cannot compell speech. This doesn't not mean that the government can compell spending (I mean, it sorta can with taxes and fines, but it can't compell spending to select businesses, markets or groups.)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

I agree with you but you're operating outside of case law and the entire sentiment is moot when arguing this particular case.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Is it saying it's illegal to "convince"(therefore not the consumer) or it's illegal to "participate" (meaning the consumer)