I work in infrastructure construction in a fairly big midwestern city. Sometimes we work in the road which sometimes facilitates having a cop come out and sit in his car with the lights on. Well the guy we’ve got right now is very chatty. Apparently the metropolitan police dept is damn near setting up a task force to catch a man with a sticker on his car that says, “I ❤️DEAD COPS”, and antagonizing police officers. But has not broken any laws. My traffic cops boss came out and is compiling body cam footage of every cops interaction with this guy. Trying to figure out if he’s broken laws or find a way to arrest him.

This is what we pay for in America. I am paying for what is essentially a small task force to catch a guy who is mildly bullying police officers but not breaking any laws. They are literally so fragile… that they are spending time, money, and energy to build a case to arrest a man with a sticker. Who pulls up too close to the backs of their cars, and tells them to fuck off. How fucking embarrassing.

So if you’re that guy, and you’re on this site… your shits based, keep bullying the little piglets. But be careful.

  • emizeko [they/them]
    ·
    3 years ago

    not trying to debatebro and I don't know either, honestly, but this piece definitely raises some interesting points

    The question of “free press” and “free speech” is not separable from the question of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie versus the dictatorship of the proletariat. The idea of “political plurality” as such turns out to be the negation of the possibility of achieving any kind of truth in the realm of politics, it reduces all historical and value claims to the rank of mere opinion. And of course, so long as someone’s political convictions are mere opinion, they won’t rise to defend them. And so the liberal state remains the dictatorial organ of the bourgeoisie, with roads being built or legislation being passed only as commanded by the interests of capital, completely disregarding the interests of workers. Under regimes where political plurality is falsely upheld as a supreme virtue, the very notion of asserting oneself as possessing a truth appears aggressive and “authoritarian.”

    from https://redsails.org/brainwashing/

    • Quimby [any, any]
      ·
      3 years ago

      Maybe a better way to put it is that I don't necessarily believe you should be able to say anything, anywhere. It's more that I believe there should be some avenue to put your thoughts forward in a public way without repercussion. So, for example, even if we don't allow people to post shit online or on billboards or whatever, I they should still have the right to show up at a town hall meeting, or whatever, and safely argue for why their thing should be allowed.

      So, what speech we allow should at least itself be subject to free discussion / public input. That seems like a good way to counterbalance the harm of bad speech with the underlying principle that people in power should be curtailing speech to protect the citizenry, rather than to consolidate their own power.