• orcrist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      As the story stands, we probably don’t have anything showing intent to suppress free speech, which is what I supposed to lawsuit would be based on. It’s possible that there’s information we don’t know yet, or that isn’t written in the article, but at the moment I don’t think a lawsuit would get very far.

      This is one of those situations where it feels like you ought to be able to sue, but maybe the best remedy is by voting in different state-level politicians.

      • nifty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        lol

        Civil disobedience is a valid tool in a state with rule of law. If it’s a failing state where law is applied selectively, you jump ship or you buy protection, where the latter route can get really expensive and isn’t a guarantee.

        The power exchanges in Stalins USSR show that no one was ever safe, including the key committee members. So people who want to create a fascist regime of some sort will be in for a rude awakening when they find that their money only goes so far.

        Edit the movie Death of Stalin is not a serious historical perspective, but it shows a lot of the dangers of creating conditions for a police state

        • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 days ago

          the movie Death of Stalin is not a serious historical perspective

          It’s accurate and it’s broad strokes in the the things that happened and did sort of happen

    • barsquid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      7 days ago

      The same people who sent the police already have Corrupt Clarence and Treason Flag Alito to create an original interpretation of the First Amendment for this one.