Chin up lad. This is just the boss fight. After this, it gets easier again.
(And yes, the people who figured they were doing a big favor for Palestinians and American Hispanics by not voting against Trump are foolish people who helped to cause all of this. I'm not mad but I am disappointed.)
Lol what that person said absolutely isn't true. Sorry, you're jumping in the deep end of Lemmy drama. So posts on lemmy.world which are (for example) trashing the Democrats for participating in Trump's takeover and being mainly concerned about preventing the "shutdown" as if that's the worst thing, or posts criticizing Israel for, you know, trying to wipe a whole race of people off the map, are super-popular.
For example take a look at this post. You will find a majority saying "about fucking time," and a minority saying Bernie is pro-Israel and that's a bad thing. You will find no one supporting Israel in any capacity (which of course is as it should be). The pretense that there's anyone on lemmy.world who is pro-Israel aside from a tiny handful of angry shouters who are probably trolls, is just that.
So that parent comment is actually a perfect example of what I was talking about setting up rules about "factual claim" for the politics community. In my perfect world, if someone comes in and says some kind of out-of-pocket stuff like that, and someone else asks "What are you even talking about how is lemmy.world pro-Israel, can I see an example?" and the answer is more or less "blblblblblbllblblblblblfdglfdglblblblb fuck you," that first person gets banned. I feel like that will reduce the temperature of the overall conversation a lot more than a lot of the things lemmy.world mods spend their effort on. It might be complex in practice but I want to try.
Why it is that people constantly make this type of accusation, I don't know for sure, although I have some theories that I find compelling.
I kind of did it in a self-service fashion... a while back I unsubscribed from !politics@lemmy.world and !world@lemmy.world, and I had a much more enjoyable Lemmy experience, and then every so often by accident I would find myself in some kind of comments thread where everyone was angry, shouting at each other, accusation of "blue MAGA" and "oh you're just saying that because YOU'RE OKAY WITH GENOCIDE YOU'RE A FUCKING ZIONIST" and things like that. And I would think, what the hell happened here? And then I would see I stumbled into lemmy.world somehow.
Some of the smaller communities are fine, they can actually be quite nice. But the big ones are just a big pile of doo doo. And then the mods are just kind of wandering around tripping on their dicks and banning people at random, which doesn't add anything of any real benefit.
I will hope, but it seems a little unlikely. Somehow, the most craven ones seem to escape justice most of the time. It's the true believers who rush out to the front, people like Stephen Miller or Alina Habba, who tend to start to catch some strays as the shit hits the fan. The dude who's sitting in the back quietly doing 100 times more damage seems to eventually get away on a boat to the Seychelles or something. He might get impeached in 5 years, or he might live out his days secure in the knowledge that he can drive his fucking RV around and do whatever he wants.
Hm... so part of my concern about the "everything else" politics community is that I feel like it is guaranteed to not really get used all that much. There's always going to be !ukpolitics@feddit.uk or !europe@lemmy.dbzer0.com or !canada@lemmy.ca, I feel like pretty much all the political content that is put up by denizens of whatever part of the world is going to go into a region-specific place, and the "everything but the US" community just wouldn't get used.
I feel like the two obvious options are:
I went with the first option. I really am fine with renaming it to !uspolitics@piefed.social, completely up to you. If it's the second option I feel like just deleting !politics@piefed.social unless someone has a use for it, to keep things clean, is probably better.
I do get the concern from the rest of the world that it's annoying to have US stuff as the "default" and everything else get put in its own region-specific "non default" category. Maybe uspolitics is a little more forward thinking in terms of getting away from that thinking (especially as the years go by and the US collapses in on itself like a rotten pumpkin, geopolitically speaking).
(And yeah, !world@quokk.au is fantastic, I like it. I sort of bounce between quokk.au and piefed.social currently in terms of my "main" account.)
Yeah, I get that. But also, 2 of the 5 stories I posted were not US politics stories. I would like to be able to post stuff about what's going on in the world without needing to sideline it if it isn't US stuff.
I do get what you're saying. Like I say, I'm just going to defer to letting the person who's organizing the top-level communities on piefed.social have the final say. I did add a "US Politics" flair, to make it a little easier to block US Politics stories if that's what people want to do, but I feel like more likely the people who don't want US politics in their feed are just going to block the whole community regardless which is completely fine (and I categorized it topic-wise accordingly).
Like I say, I do get it, I'm just deferring the decision to someone else instead of you and me arguing back and forth about it.
Why do you want to refer to Rimu about the name, while you didn’t consult him in the first place to create this community?
Because I wasn't intending for it to "go live" yet, I just didn't fully grasp what it would mean to leave the box checked to publish to other instances. I mean it's fine, I don't see a reason to delay now that it's published, but I had intended for more discussion and populating it with content before making it fully live.
It didn't even occur to me that the name would be an issue. I'm open to the idea. Like I say I think it should be instance owner's call at the end of the day, since "politics" is kind of a naturally heavily iconic community. I was actually a little bit surprised that there wasn't one here already. I'm fine changing it if the judgement is that it should have a different name.
Oh, I didn't realize it was going to make a public post about it before I had a chance to populate it lol.
Hm. I'll defer to @rimu@piefed.social about the naming. To me, "politics" while allowing politics from any country is fine, but I'm American so maybe that is just my exceptionalism. I generally follow the Beehaw conventions, they seem to strike a really good balance of short concise names without being overly chauvinistic about it.
I 100% agree with this. Lemmy is infested with politics communities but somehow every single one of them seems like it has some kind of flaw or other. !politics@beehaw.org and !politics_no_um@lemmy.world are probably the best in my opinion, but I think they are maybe not ideal only because they're both not federated to big chunks of the community. !politics@lemmy.world is absolutely godawful for multiple reasons. I actually was talking with @blaze@lazysoci.al about having half a mind to create one, to try to do a better job with it.
I just made !politics@piefed.social because your post inspired me to do something about it. Take a look at the sidebar rules and let me know what you think. I'm sure I am signing myself up for some kind of pain, let's see how it goes. How well does what I put there line up with what you were thinking in terms of how you wanted to organize the rules? I actually put specifically to allow video / image posts because of what you were saying... I might change my mind about videos just because there are already a couple of "political videos" communities and it really is a much different type of content.
The structure of the republic and the Constitution required political agents acting in good faith for the good of the citizens.
There is a 0% chance that that keeps happening. The structure of the republic required the ordinary people of the United States to be vigorous about making sure that their political agents were acting for the good of the citizens, and putting them in danger (electoral or otherwise) if they were not.
It worked, and we got complacent because things were working, and so we slid away from that and into this idea that they're supposed to just because they're supposed to. And look where it got us.
Consultant: Hey you guys are losing in basically every election by like 23 points
GOP: Yeah don't sweat it
President Donald Trump has has long considered both the media and higher education as his enemies — which makes college media a ripe target. The arrest of Rümeysa Öztürk over an op-ed that she co-wrote for the Tufts University campus paper proved that student journalists are at risk, especially foreign writers who dared criticize Israel’s war on Gaza.
But one student newspaper is fighting back.
The Stanford Daily — the independent publication covering Stanford University — filed a First Amendment lawsuit suing Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem earlier this month over two tactics they’ve used in targeted deportation cases.
“What’s at stake in this case is whether, when you’re in the United States, you’re free to voice an opinion critical of the government without fear of retaliation,” said Conor Fitzpatrick, an attorney with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, or FIRE, a civil liberties group representing the plaintiffs.
“It does not matter if you’re a citizen, here on a green card, or visiting Las Vegas for the weekend — you shouldn’t have to fear retaliation because the government doesn’t like what you have to say,” Fitzpatrick said.
Soon after Mahmoud Khalil was arrested by immigration agents in early March for his role in pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia University, student journalists and editors around the country sensed a shift.
“That’s when we saw a significant uptick in calls,” said Mike Hiestand, senior legal counsel at the Student Press Law Center, who manages the nonprofit’s hotline.
Over three decades helping student reporters navigate censorship and First Amendment issues, Hiestand had never fielded so many calls focused on potential immigration consequences for coverage on campus, both for the journalists and their named sources.
Öztürk’s arrest just a couple weeks later sent the legal hotline “into overdrive,” Hiestand told The Intercept. He heard from reporters, editors, and even political cartoonists worried their work about Israel, Palestine, and student protests might make them targets too.
In early April, the Student Press Law Center put out an unprecedented alert with other student journalism organizations, which advised campus publications to consider taking down or revising “certain stories that may now be targeted by immigration officials.”
“ICE has weaponized lawful speech and digital footprints and has forced us all to reconsider long-standing journalism norms,” reads the alert.
The next week, the Stanford Daily editorsran a letter about the chill its own staff was facing on campus.
“Both students and faculty have been increasingly hesitant to speak to The Daily and increasingly worried about comments that have already been made on the record,” their letter read. “Some reporters have been choosing to step away from stories in order to keep their name detached from topics that might draw unwanted attention. Even authors of dated opinion pieces have expressed fear that their words might retroactively put them in danger.”
Following the editors’ letter, FIRE approached the Stanford Daily’s editors to sue the Trump administration. It’s not the first time the publication has fought for freedom of the press in court. In 1978, a case brought by the Stanford Daily over a search warrant targeting its newsroom reached the Supreme Court, which ruled 5-3 that the warrant was valid and did not violate the First Amendment.
The student newspaper’s current suit — filed with two individual plaintiffs suing under the pseudonyms Jane Doe and John Doe — challenges two broad, arcane legal provisions that have become Rubio’s go-to tools against student activists and campus critics of Israel’s war on Gaza.
The first provision, which was added to the country’s immigration code in 1990, grants the secretary of state sweeping authority to render noncitizens deportable if they “compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest.” The second law is even broader, allowing the secretary to revoke visas “at any time, in his discretion.”
There are relatively few cases in which either statute has been the grounds for deportation, particularly compared to the tens of thousands of undocumented immigrants that Immigration and Customs Enforcement has rounded up and detained since Trump returned to the White House.
[
In fact, immigration scholars found that invoking the foreign policy provision as the sole grounds for deportation was “almost unprecedented,” according to a brief submitted in Khalil’s ongoing court battle by more than 150 lawyers and law professors. Based on government data, the scholars identified just 15 cases in which the foreign policy provision has ever been invoked, and just four in the past 25 years — most recently in 2018, during the first Trump administration.
“At a minimum, the government’s assertion of authority here is extraordinary — indeed, vanishingly rare,” the scholars wrote in their brief.
In Khalil’s case, the government identified only two others beside Khalil who had been targeted by Rubio under the “foreign policy” provision: although not identified by name, descriptions of the cases match Rubio’s orders against Mohsen Mahdawi, a Palestinian student at Columbia University, and Badar Khan Suri, a scholar at Georgetown University. Oddly, the government failed to mention the case of Yunseo Chung, another Columbia undergraduate with a green card, whose deportation Rubio authorized in the very same letter as for Khalil.
The State Department greenlighted Öztürk’s detention, meanwhile, under the second, broader provision, court records show. The government has not made any similar accounting of how many times Rubio and his staff have invoked his “discretion” to revoke visas over alleged antisemitism. At one point Rubio claimed to have revoked as many as 300 visas, without specifying the authority under which he did so.
“The chill is the point,” Fitzpatrick, the FIRE attorney, said. “It doesn’t take deporting thousands of noncitizens to accomplish that chill,” since no one wants to become “the next Mahmoud Khalil or Rümeysa Öztürk.”
[
Read our complete coverage
In recent months, numerous courts have cast doubt on whether these two statutes can be used to target noncitizens based on their speech.
In Khalil’s case, which is currently pending in a federal appellate court, a district court judge in New Jersey ruled in June that the “foreign policy” provision is “very likely an unconstitutional statute.”
Similarly, in May a judge in Vermont ordered Öztürk’s release to “ameliorate the chilling effect that Ms. Ozturk’s arguably unconstitutional detention may have on non-citizens present in the country.” The government has also appealed that order, along with similar rulings that freed Mahdawi and Suri from detention, and another ruling that blocked the Trump administration from detaining Chung.
Now, the Stanford Daily is mounting a direct challenge to these two laws as deployed by the Trump administration. The student newspaper argues both provisions are unconstitutional under the First Amendment, at least when used to retaliate against protected speech.
“The Secretary of State and the President claim to possess unreviewable statutory authority to deport any lawfully present noncitizen for speech the government deems anti-American or anti-Israel. They are wrong,” reads their complaint, filed August 6. “The First Amendment cements America’s promise that the government may not subject a speaker to disfavored treatment because those in power do not like his or her message.”
Julia Rose Kraut, a legal historian who has written about the history of ideological deportation in the U.S., told The Intercept that Congress never meant for the foreign policy provision to be used “as a tool to suppress freedom of expression and association.”
[
“Members of Congress intended for the foreign policy provision to be used in unusual circumstances, and only sparingly, carefully, and narrowly to exclude or deport specific individuals who would have a clear negative impact on United States foreign policy,” Kraut said, citing changes signed into law after the Cold War.
“What this case is seeking to establish is that political branches’ authority over immigration does not supersede the Bill of Rights,” FIRE’s Fitzpatrick said.
Briefing in the case is ongoing, and a hearing is scheduled for October 1.
“It’s gratifying to see a student newspaper upholding free speech at a time when many institutions are bending the knee,” said Shirin Sinnar, a law professor at Stanford, in an emailed statement. “Many students are afraid to protest the Trump administration’s actions not only because of the deportations, but because their own universities restricted speech and harshly disciplined protestors. I hope their courage inspires others to act.”
The post The Student Newspaper Suing Marco Rubio Over Targeted Deportations appeared first on The Intercept.
Oh, the dipshits will arrive. Don't you worry. 😃
And yes, I agree, I like the culture of Piefed. Let's see how things play out.