Mastodawn

Retired cop jailed for 37 days over Charlie Kirk meme sues, saying his First Amendment rights were violated

Retired cop jailed for 37 days over Charlie Kirk meme sues, saying his First Amendment rights were violated - Lemmy.World

A retired Tennessee law enforcement officer was held in jail for more than a month this fall after police arrested him over a Facebook post of a meme related to the September assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Prosecutors eventually dropped the criminal charge brought against Larry Bushart, but his stint behind bars came to exemplify the country’s tense political and legal climate following the tragedy, when conservatives sought to stymie public discourse about the late controversial figure that it saw as objectionable. Now, Bushart is suing over his incarceration.

Show thread

Grandwolf319 Dec 18

Was there ever a time that Republicans actually stayed true to their principles when it wasn’t to their advantage?

In my life experience I honestly can’t think of a time.

1860

I think you might need to learn less civil war mythology and more actual history.

They weren’t holding up to their principals then either, the whole thing was genuinely about states rights they just said their rights overruled other states rights because ownership of property didn’t change via interstate travel.

It’s far more stupid then most textbooks imply.

Show thread

ngdev Dec 18

youre fucking dumb lmao

Show thread

Madison420 Dec 18

Read a history book those are all facts. Sure repubs were the “good guys” at the moment but that too is warped, Lincoln was against immediate emancipation but for slow rolling emancipation.

Look it up, the mythology behind the civil war in this country is fuckin wild.

Show thread

ngdev Dec 18

youre fucking dumb and any any conversation about the civil war, states rights, and property that does not mention slaves and that people are not property is disingenuous and fucking stupid. youre a fucking moron lol like fr? it was about states not recognizing property? you fucking clown lmao it was about (southern) states not recognizing people

Show thread

HarneyToker Dec 18

Yeah, I’m pretty sick of the “It was a different time” bullshit too. It was not about property because people are not property, and humans decided that slavery is wrong LONG before the Civil War. Look in the fucking Bible, the most disseminated piece of literature of all time, and the book that many dumbasses say the US was founded on.

Show thread

Madison420 Dec 18

I don’t believe people are property but we aren’t talking about what I believe we’re talking about how the civil war was framed and specifically the mythology it’s evolved into. Sure sane people don’t believe slavery is a righteous endeavor but clearly that’s not changed anything today nor in the past given that slavery hasn’t ended globally and in the US slavery specifically and legislatively isn’t illegal in certain instances like lawful imprisonment, again mythology.

Show thread

HarneyToker Dec 18

Not talking about other places. I’m suggesting that the arguments about “states rights” and “property” are disingenuous because they imply that we didn’t agree that slavery is fucked to begin with. If we are a country founded on Christian values as many would suggest, then it is not possible to have an argument about “property” when you’re referring to people. This was true in 1860, as well.

Show thread

Madison420

It was literally framed at the time as states rights and specifically interstate property rights, this is what I mean by mythology. You want to ignore actual history because it makes you feel weird, that’s how mythology starts and progresses.

We literally didn’t agree that’s why there was a fucking war about it genius.

The country wasn’t founded on Christian ideals, that’s more mythology you can literally read the founders talking about the nation not being Christian or Christ based at all. Moreover slavery is not just legal in Christianity but fucking prescribed, it’s more mythology.

It quite literally was not true in 1860 hence the goddamn war and continuing racism in America.

And if a man sells his daughter to be a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who has betrothed her to himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt deceitfully with her. And if he has betrothed her to his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. If he takes another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights. And if he does not do these three for her, then she shall go out free, without paying money.