politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
As a white person who's worked in blue collar industries, I've often had discussions with other (usually white) co-workers about "why do black people get so upset about the N-word, it's just a word, you can call me anything you want and I won't care".
Through much trial and error, I eventually discovered that "Okay, Colonizer" was a very effective way to challenge that assertion, though it was usually met with "BUT THAT'S DIFFERENT >:{" rather than "Oh, I understand now". I'm sure "Okay, racist" would have had a similarly potent effect.
The point that I'm getting at here is that this is basically Florida scrambling to protect white fragility. Laws that protect but don't bind the in group, etc. etc.
It's less to protect white fragility, and more to censor anyone "woke" from talking about racism — same as banning books, changing history, CRT, etc.
It's about implementing fascism.
In the era of social media it's become common for someone's racism views posted on their personal social media to get forwarded to their professional relationships (employer, clients) leading to fallout, for example.
This is an attempt at stifling that sort of thing. When this first started the people on the receiving end complained about 'freedom of speech'.
They where told freedom of speech isn't freedom of consequences.
This is Floridas attempt at getting rid of the consequences by silencing free speech, ironically.
Isn't truth a complete defense against defamation? As in, if your statement is provably true then it is by definition not defamation (like, this is why the news makes such heavy use of the word "alleged"). So, for example, forwarding someone's personal social media to their employer couldn't be defamation, presuming you weren't claiming someone else's social media was theirs or something. Always make sure when you dox someone you get the right John Smith, I guess?
Yes, truth is a defense.
The grey area this law attempts to exploit is that terms like 'racist' have no absolute definition. The term can be used as a response to anything from 'i don't like Indian food' to 'Hilters views on the aryan race were right'.
Take the Indian food example. If you were you say that, and I called you a racist for it, is that a matter of opinion on my behalf or a fact that is the basis of a defamation suit?