338
cross-posted from: https://infosec.pub/post/47338524
this post was submitted on 01 Jun 2026
338 points (100.0% liked)
Political Memes
11914 readers
1523 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes 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.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That is correct according to a common interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. But the judges who ~~are bribed to be creative in their interpretation of law~~ often vehemently disagree, and think that the rights to free political speech and free press should be sharply curbed.
There are a lot of universities that have designated free-speech zones.
If you are confused, use this easy guide.
Free speech judge agrees with = ok
Free speech judges does not agree with = not ok
That was the point of Hustler Magazine v. Falwell: True freedom of speech has to include speech that the authorities find objectionable, or that the majority doesn't like, no matter if it's vulgar or politically unpopular or simply a bad take. Regardless, we have to be free to express it.
Granted, there are typically some exceptions recognized in 20th-century industrialized nations, including fascist content, extreme racism, calls to violence and information hazards (e.g. instructions on making drugs or building explosive devices).
Tangent on CSAM
Child Sexual Assault Material or CSAM provides a weird gray zone. CSAM is universally illegal when it is produced by actually endangering or harming children. But art that depicted CSAM yet doesn't actually involve children may not be, especially, if it has artistic value or is thought-provoking. During the 20th and 21st centuries, content featuring child sexuality slips in and out of legality depending on the era, on local ordinance and sometimes even whether a police officer, DA or judge decides possession is criminal in a given case. 70's coming of age porn fiction became illegal in the 80s. Japanese lolicon (and its knockoffs) from the 1990s became illegal in the aughts (at least in red states. Blue states still sometimes interpreted it as art). CGI content has always been a gray zone, and currently AI slop of CSAM is legal, not because culture has changed but because the controllers of the AI technology have incredible influence on the federal government.Curiously, when political speech and freedom of the press is restricted, it is consistently pressure from the right, whether conservative universities designating free speech zones or the police trying to kettle the press (and put down independent journalists who aren't backed by the legal branch of a major news agency) during civil unrest such as the 2014 Ferguson Unrest after the slaying of Michael Brown.
In the 21st century, beats around the federal government weren't blatantly regulated until Trump, but those who kept officials in good light and refused to publish embarrassing stories were definitely given privileged positions. Hence during the Iraq War, we had to rely on foreign news to learn about the torture, the war crimes, the use of PMCs and so on, just as we have to rely on independent media today.
But in a properly liberal society (not to be confused with a neoliberal society such as 20th century US and the EU), the press needs to be independent and allowed to publish the truth no matter how embarrassing it might be to the state or its officials.
and recently they have largely quashed or censored those universities, and they all pretty much bowed to the pressure, under the threat of pulling out funding.
Yes. Curiously the colleges that capitulated to the Trump regime continued to be pressured by it, and have been denied funding anyway. It shows that once again appeasement of fascists does not work.
its mostly against allowing anti-zionist protest, which what got all the zionist backers of these colleges panties in a wad. i havnt seen it being reported in the news, its either they are likely succesful in censoring it or the news isnt reporting it on purpose, to cause a bigger streisand effect.