this post was submitted on 04 May 2025
966 points (97.3% liked)

Political Memes

7966 readers
2033 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 68 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

Didn't CU rule that spending money is free speech? So isn't compelling the spending of money compelling speech? Sounds straight up unconstitutional.(as if that fucking matters these days)

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 67 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

Rich people spending money is free speech.

Anti-genocide activists not spending money is terrorism.

AKA the usual.

[–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -1 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

Wait, doesn't your argument support their bill?

They're agreeing with you; they are suggesting that convincing people of what to do with their money is infringing on their "speech."

[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 5 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

My argument is that republicans are never consistent with their policies.

Spending isn't free speech. The government cannot compell speech. This doesn't not mean that the government can compell spending (I mean, it sorta can with taxes and fines, but it can't compell spending to select businesses, markets or groups.)

[–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 17 hours ago

I agree with you but you're operating outside of case law and the entire sentiment is moot when arguing this particular case.

[–] nexguy@lemmy.world 2 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

Is it saying it's illegal to "convince"(therefore not the consumer) or it's illegal to "participate" (meaning the consumer)