this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2023
-11 points (23.8% liked)

Conservative

291 readers
12 users here now

A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff

  1. Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.

  2. We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.

  3. Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.

A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.

founded 8 months ago
MODERATORS
 

I want to get y'all thoughts on it. I want to avoid having 5,000 rules that are impossible to follow, but this one seems prudent.

Just a simple [Satire] in the titles would be enough.

Edit: I won't add a rule about a satire tag.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago (6 children)

The Onion once filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court informing the justices that satire does not need labels. Going so far as to argue that satire isn't satire if it's labelled as such.

This was after a police department arrested a guy for creating a fake Facebook page of that department and posted things that made it seem like the department was full of racist sex offenders. The police claimed that since it wasn't labelled as a joke page people could be confused. The Onion argues, that's the whole point of satire.

[–] SpaceNoodle 2 points 8 months ago (5 children)
[–] nukeworker10 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

It was a request for the court to hear the case (a petition for certiorari). The court denied cert and didn't hear the case, therefore the lower court ruling stayed in place. From Wikipedia "The parody page, which strongly resembled the real page, had led to Novak's arrest in March 2016 and a subsequent trial for disrupting public services, which resulted in Novak's acquittal.[1] Novak then brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for retaliation and prior restraint. An initial decision of the Sixth Circuit in July 2019 allowed most of the suit to proceed, leading to a February 2021 ruling that Novak's arresting officers both had probable cause and were protected by qualified immunity, which the Sixth Circuit upheld in April 2022. "

[–] SpaceNoodle 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Ah, so the state-backed harassment is working as designed.

[–] nukeworker10 -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Depends. Nowak had the charges against him dismissed. He then sued the police. He lost that case when it got to the Supreme Court and they denied cert.

[–] SpaceNoodle 1 points 8 months ago

Right, so they harassed him with impunity. The harassment is the point.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)