This is exactly what liberals wanted when they passed the earliest hate speech legislation in the 90’s.
Truly a leopards eating my face moment.

If the offenses are note-worthy, they should be in jail. If not then no-one needs to be aware of them.

On the one hand this is how it’s supposed to work.

Why? You think it’s ideal that your livelihood is dependent on holding whatever the majority opinion of the day is?

Conservatives named it, and are currently weaponizing it. But it started with people being racist on facebook and then getting fired because online activists were complaining. This trend continues today with tik-toks that say thing like “make them famous.” The online rallying cry on reddit and other spaces that freedom of speech wasn’t freedom of consequences, and of course that the first amendment only applies to the government.

While those positions are legally true, in liberal fashion they never considered if the chilling effect this created could ever be weaponized. But maybe having your livelihood being dependent on having “correct” opinions could possibly be a problem that a Just society should attempt to address?

It’s real and always has been, the thing liberals are upset about is that it doesn’t just apply to people who say naughty words.

I mean I was happy about that too. Shitty people deserve the consequences of the degrading society they help create and profit off of maintaining.

Cool another boon-dongle that the current pentagon chiefs will profit off of once they retire and join Northrop Grumman as contractors. I’m sure the $100billion price will more then triple over the next 10years too.

Being “against political violence” is defending the status quo. Kirk’s opinion on guns wasn’t problematic at all and fucking liberals acting like that was his problem disgust me.

Removed by mod

Why? Who cares about “offenses” of a random traveler. Why do you trust an international crime db to be accurate?

What a terribly naive thing to say.

Almost certainly. It was an intentional shot, you don’t aim for the neck. Either the shooter was aiming for the heart or the head, and missed. But mission still accomplished.

Glad he’s dead. Hope he is the first of many and that the shooter is never found.

Also normalize calling any liberal a fascist who is trying to introduce gun control even though this is the best case scenario of an armed populace.

Love that the Tunisian Authorities claim it wasn;t a drone, but that merely an incendiary device dropped from a drone, a totally different thing.

Also why is Tunisia fucking with the flotilla? Surely they aren’t friends with Israel.

The racketeering charges were never intended to be “real.” The consequences of interacting with America’s justice system is the punishment for acting against it. Sure the people protesting won’t be incarcerated, but the consequences of their actions will haunt them for the rest of their lives.

If you want to protest against the government, don’t do it within the “proper” channels. Stay extra-legal, stay safe, do not collaborate with law-enforcement.

So because some people can’t use no one should use it? I don’t understand the complaint. Is the hot new 1-man privacy focused app that requires side-loading more accessible?

“Millions” of votes means that at the local level the Capitalist party become the third-party.

I’m pretty happy with the outcome. The more America is weakened, the better for the rest of the world and the easier it will be to rebuild to something better.

I’m using “open source” colloquially. The point is that your specific nitpick about imessage not having some specific text file and license associated with it, isn’t important in a world where there doesn’t exist an alternative that is nearly as robust and supported. Ultimately you are upset that imessage is run by a corporation (a valid complaint) but there is no indication that the corporation is lying to you about the privacy of their messaging service.

While in the ideal world a non-opensource app would be a deal breaker, in the current world, there is no indication that imessage has any privacy concerns associated with it. It’s not just taking Apple at their word, there have been a lot practical analysis of how the protocol works. Plus the underlying cryptography is sound.

https://security.apple.com/assets/files/Security_analysis_of_the_iMessage_PQ3_protocol_Stebila.pdf <- hosted by Apple.
https://www.douglas.stebila.ca/blog/archives/2024/02/21/imessage-pq3/ <-original author
https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/usenixsecurity25/sec25cycle1-prepub-595-linker.pdf <- Independent analysis of the protocol and implementation.

Sure you could claim that actually Apple is lying about how they are securing imessage, but that is a lot of effort when they could just take the Facebook approach and straight up admit that they have the ability to read your texts, much easier, and safer legally.