111–120 of 144 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"And suppressing opposition is the natural outcome of the government doing its job. " - no it isn't. It's the natural outcome of shitty people being elected. The JD isn't "jackboots on necks" or whatever.
> no it isn't. It's the natural outcome of shitty people being elected. Okay, well it's the outcome of literally every government of non-trivial size and duration.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your SSN was your driver's license number in 29 states until 2004, when Bush outlawed the practice. Many, many institutions in the USA are built on it being a high-trust society. Now that it's falling into a low-trust state, we can expect those institutions to fail, and perhaps the state to as well.
> Many, many institutions in the USA are built on it being a high-trust society. Now that it's falling into a low-trust state, we can expect those institutions to fail, and perhaps the state to as well. Not enough people understand this, but I'm encouraged whenever I hear from those who do.
Missouri Gov. Mike Parson (R) said fixing the flaw could cost the state $50 million Talk about waste of resources.
> fixing the flaw could cost the state $50 million It's hard to imagine the kind of contorted bureaucracy that could turn such a fix into a $50 million change request, and yet, I wouldn't be surprised at all if it did cost that much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. Thank you nosy media. This anti-press stuff started with Trump. Terrifying how authoritarian the right has become. Reporters, please continue “embarrassing” all states. The sane leaders and citizens will be thanking you.
Anti-press goes back decades, centuries even. Calling it a left/right issue just diverts from the real problem of government overreach and negative reaction to the exposure of malfeasance. If you seriously think anti-press is a Trump phenomenon, I encourage you to look into the creation and use of the Alien and Sedition acts. Or maybe how Lincoln treated press that was not acting as a propaganda arm of the Federal go…
Alternatively, arguments like that divert from the "real" problem that half of the political discourse of this country is predicated on an "anti-press" sentiment that allows political actors to lie at will.
Yes, there have been abuses against journalists throughout history. And because of that, it's possible to take a long view that "journalism" as a whole will win, given at least a little protection. Society will survive the occasional corrupt leader. It always has.
But the current climate where republicans can simply ignore reporting by mainstream outlets and cite their own alternative media instead is somewhat unique, historically. Something like two thirds of republican voters simply... don't believe in the results of a recent election, because their thought leaders won't tell them straight what the results were. This seems like rather a more pressing threat to democracy.
I have minimal sympathy for those who have chosen to stay recently.
I have contempt for those who would move there now, or seek out business there.
Ummmmm how does something need that much money for a bug fix???
> fixing the flaw could cost the state $50 million Ummmmm how does something need that much money for a bug fix???
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Politicians are always threatening revenge for stuff like this, for as long as there has been politics. It is only concerning if the threat is successful.
The only thing that would lead it to being successful is if people are convinced that the attempt itself isn't alarming, and don't act aggressively to do something about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s no extra constitutional protections. It’s all under free speech. Everyone is equal.
x1000 this. The freedom of the press is a right granted to all citizenry of the United States, not a specialized permission granted to an elite caste.
For example based on Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire it’s constitutional to prohibit “fighting words.” Which would mean some things are fine in print but you can’t say to someone’s face because they would provoke violence.