#prosecution speech
Explore tagged Tumblr posts
Note
magnusmaxima openly confessed to his crimes so if you don't vote condemno you will be prosecuted next. is that anything
also if anon couldn't get away with time travel this person shouldn't get away with corruption
oh nice Threat! i'm not sure how it would work with the secret ballot but i guess there's always even more voter fraud, or possibly magic?
34 notes · View notes
glowingsand · 2 years ago
Text
Tumblr media
smile for the camera please!!
189 notes · View notes
ashadowofburnedoutstardust · 10 months ago
Text
Tumblr media
If you are an American and you value the right to free speech and the right to protest or are a foreigner to the USA who doesn't think that the US government should have the right to prevent you from being able to speak out against something then you need to educate yourself on what the US Govt is currently trying to do to Julian Assange and the real reasons why they are trying to push through KOSA
The goal is to control the flow of information to hide what we could not see when we couldn't watch what they were doing on our phones
If they manage to extradite him to the USA they will be able to do this to any and all Journalists or citizens of other countries. They are attempting to create a situation that will allow them to violate the sovereignty of other nations through something other than lobbying/bribery
This is why the USA does not care about the deaths of journalists in the Occupied State of Palestine who were exposing the war crimes they have been funding and sponsoring via social media
youtube
After the International Criminal court is done with Israel it needs to go after the US and British governments for it's complicity in the Genocide in Palestine, but also the other crimes it has committed previously that Assange managed to expose them for in Iraq and Afghanistan
It is my own personal speculation that copies of what was given to Assange by Chelsea Manning that The Guardian was forced to destroy still exist and they are actively trying to prevent it from going to trial
20 notes · View notes
queerclarkkent · 1 month ago
Text
remember that time that a centaur intentionally misgendered Caeneus so he casually stabbed that centaur with a sword?
good times, good times
5 notes · View notes
baravaggio · 1 year ago
Text
ngl I would definitely recommend at least reading up on BDS a little bit if not just to understand how reviled it is within the united states especially as well in a lot of other countries....like not to discourage anyone from participating, but you should probably know that people quite literally lose their jobs for publicly supporting it
14 notes · View notes
insightfultake · 6 months ago
Text
The God of Small Things is in Real Danger for her Provocative Speech
The celebrated author of The God of Small Things and social activist Arundhati Roy is known for her fiery tongue for the criticism of the government. It earned her a prosecution under Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. An FIR was registered against her and former law professor at the Central University of Kashmir, Sheikh Showkat Hussain, in 2010 on the behest of complaints lodged by Sushil Pandit, another social activist from Kashmir, at the Tilak Marg police station in New Delhi. Following his complaint, Delhi Police registered an FIR against her and many others in 2010....read more
2 notes · View notes
noirandchocolate · 13 days ago
Text
For anyone wondering whether the First Amendment protects speech like this—“Threatening” speech is considered “outside” the Amendment, BUT only “true” threats are exempted from protection.
There’s a whole body of law on the topic of what constitutes a true threat. Some info can be found here, at Constitution Annotated, a .gov site maintained by Congress. The ACLU also discusses the subject in this article about Counterman v. Colorado, a US Supreme Court case from last year. This short fact sheet from Georgetown Law also has some cites.
you guys made luigi mangione trend for days and I need to see the same energy for brianna boston. she is a 43 year old mother of three who ended a phone call with blue cross blue shield (after being denied a claim) “delay deny depose, you’re next” and is now being held under a 100,000$ bond and could face FIFTEEN years of prison if charged. she has no weapons, her record is clean, and yet she is being held behind bars. they are afraid of the public and are trying to subdue. do not let them!!!! say her name!!! be outraged that our freedom of speech is being threatened!!!!! deny defend depose! free brianna boston!
179K notes · View notes
judahmaccabees · 8 months ago
Text
Fairness is Weakness
For the Domineer
Covert and Ominous
Truth they Fear
0 notes
immaculatasknight · 11 months ago
Link
The Orwellian playbook on campus
1 note · View note
neil-gaiman · 9 months ago
Note
Hello, I saw your article entitled "WHY DEFEND FREEDOM OF ICKY SPEECH?" And I'd like to ask... Are you normalizing lolicon now? It's not just a made-up story where there's inappropriate content with children, where it's portrayed as something terrible. It's portrayed as something normal and sexy😦
This article?
As I point out in the article, I'd not actually read any lolicon, and 16 years later, I still haven't. As I say in it:
Still, you seem to want lolicon banned, and people prosecuted for owning it, and I don't. You ask, What makes it worth defending? and the only answer I can give is this: Freedom to write, freedom to read, freedom to own material that you believe is worth defending means you're going to have to stand up for stuff you don't believe is worth defending, even stuff you find actively distasteful, because laws are big blunt instruments that do not differentiate between what you like and what you don't, because prosecutors are humans and bear grudges and fight for re-election, because one person's obscenity is another person's art.
Because if you don't stand up for the stuff you don't like, when they come for the stuff you do like, you've already lost.
8K notes · View notes
marzipanandminutiae · 1 year ago
Text
so this sounds haunting out of context but uh
Ray Bradbury thought broad public disapproval of saying homophobic or racist things, specifically, was going to turn the world into Fahrenheit 451
Tumblr media Tumblr media
Ray Bradbury, The Martian Chronicles
4K notes · View notes
saturnisfallingdown · 9 months ago
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
these tags made me laugh
[ID: A simplistic multi-panel comic of the characters from Sanders Sides, told through screenshots of a Tumblr post.
Panel 1: Janus, dressed in a suit, sits at the prosecution desk from Selfishness vs. Selflessness. The screenshot, a post from @/crustaceousfaggot reads "Is lying ever ethically correct" Panel 2: Extremely simple renditions of Roman, Thomas, and Virgil in their courtroom attire sit on one side of a desk, while Patton, looking worried, sits on the other side. The screenshot is of Tumblr poll results, reading "Yes - 97.6% / No - 2.4%". Panel 3: Logan, sitting in a chair, squints at the scene from a distance. Panel 4: Logan sits in the back of audience seating, surrounded by chairs as well as text reading [chairs]. He speaks with a speech bubble with Tumblr tags in it, reading "#who voted no? immanuel kant isnt going to fuck you" Panel 5: Patton sits in a folding chair leaning forward to hold his head in his hands, in the pose of the Shinji chair meme.
End ID]
3K notes · View notes
ceilidhtransing · 4 months ago
Text
Having spent pretty much the entire year immersed in studying Nazi Germany, the Holocaust, and genocide more broadly, my heart is bursting with the need to stress how much you should take Project 2025 seriously. This is a long post but please stick with me.
Don't take this post as an attempt to concretely predict anything. We can't ever fully know the future and I think it's silly to say with total certainty “if Trump wins then America will become just like Nazi Germany” - not only because the future isn't written yet, but also because Germany under the Nazis was a very specific regime with its own quirks and peculiarities and I don't think that even a worst-case-scenario Trump regime would look exactly like Hitler's Germany. No two regimes ever look exactly alike: it would use the same colour palette as all far-right dictatorships but be constructed from a different medium, like what a watercolour is to an oil painting.
But just because Trump is a very different person from Hitler, and a worst-case-scenario Trump dictatorship would not literally be “Nazi Germany all over again”, that doesn't mean that what happened in Germany isn't instructive here. Forget the specifics of whether or not Trump as a dictator would organise a state identically to how the Nazis organised Germany or whatever; on a far broader and more relevant level, there is a distressing number of similarities. And too many people are falling into the same thought traps as they did then.
Please don't assume that Trump is “way too incompetent” to achieve what's in Project 2025 or Agenda 47. They said the same thing about Hitler. They said that there was no way this showman could govern effectively - holding big rallies and making speeches that get people riled up isn't the same as being good at running a functioning state and achieving what you want. The New York Times even wrote after he became Chancellor of Germany that this would only “let him expose to the German public his own futility”. And in many ways Hitler was pretty incompetent. But that didn't end up mattering. The greatest crime of the Nazi regime, the Holocaust, was masterminded mostly by a whole load of people besides Hitler, who were delegated the nitty-gritty task of actually orchestrating it. Hitler's personal incompetence didn't prevent war or genocide.
Please don't assume that Trump is “just a wacky nutcase” who “can't possibly be a real risk”. They said the same thing about Hitler. The mainstream media gave constant coverage to all the crazy extreme things Hitler said as if he was merely a bit of a joke and not a massive threat. The Nazis were quite happy with this. To quote Goebbels repeatedly in his diary, “The main thing is they're talking about us.”
Please don't assume that being in power will “moderate” Trump and that “of course he won't be able to do all the crazy stuff once he actually has to govern”. They said the same thing about Hitler. It was a common sentiment in the early 1930s that all the sensible politicians around him would force him to moderate his stances. Fritz von Papen, the last Chancellor of Weimar Germany, persuaded President Hindenburg to make Hitler the Chancellor by assuring him, “In a few months, we will have pushed [Hitler] so far into the corner that he will squeak.” It turns out that power doesn't “moderate” people who are openly talking about a dictatorship.
Please don't assume that there's any truth to the whole “Trump has nothing to do with Project 2025 and trying to link it to him is just liberal hysteria” line. They said the same thing about Hitler. People repeatedly asserted that Nazi street violence wasn't really representative of the party leadership; it wasn't representative of Hitler. He was even subpoenaed by a very brave lawyer in 1931 in a bid to prove that recent violence by Nazi stormtroopers was committed with the knowledge and encouragement of the party leadership, with part of the prosecution's argument hanging on a pamphlet by Goebbels that promised a violent overthrow of the state if the Nazis couldn't come to power legitimately. Surely no legal political party could be publishing that. In a successful attempt to escape criminal charges, Hitler repeatedly lied that the pamphlet was not official Nazi Party material and that he didn't know anything about it. No Trump didn't write it, no it isn't an official GOP manifesto, but the links between Project 2025 and Trump, the previous Trump administration, and Trump allies are extremely well documented. Just the other day, Project 2025 co-author Russell Vought was caught calling Trump's disavowals of the document “graduate-level politics” and saying, “what he's doing is just very, very conscious distancing himself from a brand ... he's in fact not even opposing himself to a particular policy.”
Please don't assume that “there's no way something like that could happen here; we're way too educated and advanced”. They said the same thing about Hitler. The Germany of the 1920s and 1930s was one of the most educated and most scientifically and industrially advanced nations in the world, and its cities were some of the most progressive in the world. People were stunned and horrified that it was in Germany of all places - Germany, land of music and art and science and literature! - that fascism took root. Germany's economic and social advancement didn't stop about 40% of its voters choosing the Nazis. It didn't stop them taking power.
Please don't assume that Project 2025 is “just a wishlist” and “not actually a serious plan”. They said the same thing about Hitler. As is hopefully very clear by now, plenty of people did not think that the Nazis were capable of, or would dare to try, putting into actual practice the horrific ideas about race that undergirded so much of their ideology. “I like Hitler; he talks sense economically and I think all this stuff about Jews is just bluff and bluster.” “Every party has a loony wing, right? You have to understand they're not serious when they talk about this stuff; they're just telling their base what they want to hear.” “God have you heard this crazy race science shit about head shapes and stuff? It's hilarious! I'm sure none of them at the top really believe that; there's no way they'd be that nuts.” When a group of people like this tells you what they believe and tells you what they want to do with power, believe them. No matter how ridiculous they seem, they're not joking.
In the words of Hans Litten, the lawyer who subpoenaed and cross-examined Hitler in that court case in 1931, “Don't listen to him; he's telling the truth.” Litten was arrested on the night of the Reichstag fire in 1933 and spent the rest of his life being tortured in concentration camps before dying in Dachau in 1938 at the age of 34.
A tyrannical dictatorship can often be seen coming a mile away. I don't want to imply for a second that what the Nazis did came as a surprise to everyone and couldn't possibly have been predicted. There were people who saw this coming in the 1920s and 1930s and tried to sound the alarm while they still had a chance. But they were too often in the minority, taking the threat seriously while others had convinced themselves that there was no need for concern because the Nazis wouldn't really do all the things they repeatedly talked about wanting to do. Everyone should have seen this coming, but too many people wanted to believe it couldn't be true.
Don't let this scare you. Let it energise you. Talk to the people in your life about Project 2025 and Agenda 47. Push back against people who assert that “they'd never actually do all that stuff” or “Trump didn't even write Project 2025” or “it's not a real plan, just a list of crazy shit to get the base riled up”. Have conversations with folks you know who are on the fence about voting or about who to vote for and who seem persuadable. Make sure you're registered to vote, and keep making sure, especially if you live in a red state where people keep mysteriously dropping off voter rolls.
Now, again, please don't read this as some confident prediction that Trump will be a Hitler figure. I want to stress that is a worst-case scenario. If a Trump presidency is what happens, I would much prefer the best-case scenario: that he spends four years fumbling around and not really accomplishing anything and then gives up power at the end without much of a fight. But it would also be a folly to be smugly overconfident that the worst-case scenario “won't” or “can't” happen. It could. It has happened before. There is no reason it couldn't happen again.
396 notes · View notes
Text
Tumblr media
(@cardinalvalentino)
trial of Titus Annius Milo
date: 52 BCE, Milo charged on March 26, trial on April 4-7/[8]) charge: lex Pompeia de vi (murder of Clodius) defendant: T. Annius Milo pr. 55 advocates: M. Claudius Marcellus cos. 51 M. Tullius Cicero cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 72)  prosecutors: M. Antonius q. 51, cos. 44, 34 (subscr.) Ap. Claudius Pulcher cos. 38 (nom. del.) Ap. Claudius Pulcher sen.? (subscr.) P. Valerius Nepos (subscr.)  quaesitor: L. Domitius Ahenobarbus cos. 54 jurors: Q. Petilius M. Porcius Cato pr. 54 (voted A) P. Varius witnesses: Q. Arrius pr. before 63 = ? Q. Arrius pr. 73 C. Causinius Schola of Interamna C. Clodius Fulvia M. Porcius Cato pr. 54 Sempronia residents of Bovillae virgines Albanae 
Cic. Mil.; Liv. Per. 107; Vell. 2.47.4-5; Asc. 30-56; Quint. Inst. 3.6.93, 3.11.15 and 17; 4.1.20; 4.2.25, 4.3.17, 6.3.49, 10.1.23; Plut. Cic. 35; App. BCiv. 2.21-22, 24; Dio 40.54-55.1; Schol. Bob. 111-125St; Schol. Gronov. D 322-323St; see also Cic. Att. 5.8.2-3, 6.4.3, 6.5.1-2
229 notes · View notes
infiniteglitterfall · 4 months ago
Text
I guess this might be why the UK seemed to go so antisemitic so quickly
I'm researching the 1947 pogroms in the UK. (Actually, I'm researching all the pogroms and massacres of Jews in the past 200 years. Which today led me to discover that there were pogroms in the UK in 1947.)
From an article on "The Postwar Revival of British Fascism," all emphasis mine:
Given the rising antisemitism and widespread ignorance about Zionism [in the UK in 1947], fascists were easily able to conflate Zionist paramilitary attacks with Judaism in their speeches, meaning British Jews came to be seen as complicit in violence in Palestine.
Bertrand Duke Pile, a key member of Hamm’s League, informed a cheering crowd that “the Jews have no right to Palestine and the Jews have no right to the power which they hold in this country of ours.” Denouncing Zionism as a way to introduce a wider domestic antisemitic stance was common to many speakers at fascist events and rallies. Fascists hid their ideology and ideological antisemitism behind the rhetorical facade of preaching against paramilitary violence in Palestine.
One of the league’s speakers called for retribution against “the Jews” for the death of British soldiers in Palestine. This was, he told his audience, hardly an antisemitic expression. “Is it antisemitism to denounce the murderers of your own flesh and blood in Palestine?” he asked his audience. Many audience members, fascist or not, may well have felt the speaker had a point. ...[The photo of two British sergeants hanged by the Irgun in retaliation for the Brits hanging three of their members] promptly made numerous appearances at fascist meetings, often attached to the speaker’s platform. In at least one meeting, several British soldiers on leave from serving in Palestine attended Hamm’s speech, giving further legitimacy to his remarks. And with soldiers and policemen in Palestine showing increasing signs of overt antisemitism as a result of their experiences, the director of public prosecutions warned that the fascists might receive a steady stream of new recruits.
MI5, the U.K. domestic security service, noted with some alarm that “as a general rule, the crowd is now sympathetic and even spontaneously enthusiastic.” Opposition, it was noted in the same Home Office Bulletin of 1947, “is only met when there is an organized group of Jews or Communists in the audience.”
The major opposition came from the 43 Group, formed by the British-Jewish ex-paratrooper Gerry Flamberg and his friends in September 1946 to fight the fascists using the only language they felt fascists understood — violence. The group disrupted fascist meetings for two purposes: to get them shut down by the police for disorder, and to discourage attendance in the future by doling out beatings with fists and blunt instruments. By the summer of 1947, the group had around 500 active members who took part in such activities. Among these was a young hairdresser by the name of Vidal Sassoon, who would often turn up armed with his hairdressing scissors.
The 43 Group had considerable success with these actions, but public anger was spreading faster than they could counter the hate that accompanied it. The deaths of Martin and Paice had touched a nerve with the populace. On Aug. 1, 1947, the beginning of the bank holiday weekend and two days after the deaths of the sergeants, anti-Jewish rioting began in Liverpool. The violence lasted for five days. Across the country, the scene was repeated: London, Manchester, Hull, Brighton and Glasgow all saw widespread violence. Isolated instances were also recorded in Plymouth, Birmingham, Cardiff, Swansea, Newcastle and Davenport. Elsewhere, antisemitic graffiti and threatening phone calls to Jewish places of worship stood in for physical violence. Jewish-owned shops had their windows smashed, Jewish homes were targeted, an attempt was made to burn down Liverpool Crown Street Synagogue while a wooden synagogue in Glasgow was set alight. In a handful of cases, individuals were personally intimidated or assaulted. A Jewish man was threatened with a pistol in Northampton and an empty mine was placed in a Jewish-owned tailor shop in Davenport.
And an important addendum:
I've read a whole bunch of articles about the pogroms in Liverpool, Manchester, Salford, Eccles, Glasgow, etc.
Not one of them has mentioned that the Irgun, though clearly a terrorist group, was formed in response to 18 years of openly antisemitic terrorism, including multiple incredibly violent massacres. Or that it consistently acted in response to the murders of Jewish civilians, not on the offensive. Or that at this point, militant Arab Nationalist groups with volunteers and arms from the Arab League countries had been attacking Jewish and mixed Arab-Jewish neighborhoods for months.
I just think the "Jewish militants had been attacking the British occupiers" angle is incredibly Anglocentric.
Yeah, they were attacking the British occupiers. But also, that's barely the tip of the iceberg.
Everyone involved hated the Brits at this point. If only al-Husseini and his ilk had hated the Brits more than they hated the Jews, Britain could at least have united them by giving them a common enemy.
295 notes · View notes
transmutationisms · 24 days ago
Text
i think the "slippery slope" arguments wrt reeducation make sense to liberals who have seen bourgeois states use like sedition & treason laws to prosecute commies (or lbr, demsocs that liberals think are commies) but the thing is that wasn't a slippery slope, those people were the ones (perceived as) posing a threat to the bourgeois state all along. its interests have been consistent there has been no sliding. it always existed to suppress the proletariat. if you believed bourgeois state rhetoric about free speech or whtever at the start and were then surprised by what you perceive as hypocrisy then that's a valuable opportunity for you to analyse and learn how not to get suckered in and instead pay attention to what the state's actual material interests are the entire time
164 notes · View notes