Occidental Dissent has been labeled a “hate site.”
Last night, I noticed that we have been blocked by Target.
I don’t know how anyone can read this website though and come away with the impression that I am driven by a pathological hatred of racial minorities. I clearly hate these people.
“The Big Lie took a beating in the midterms. Of the six 2020 election deniers vying to take control of a battleground state’s election systems, not a single one was victorious. But democracy isn’t exactly safe from being undermined by a campaign of falsehoods orchestrated by Donald Trump, who is trying to retake the White House. In response to Trump’s ascent and other challenges across the world to shared truths that stitch together societies, some scholars have begun to argue that it’s time to reconsider the meaning of freedom of speech. “The question is gaining traction among legal academics,” says Richard Hasen, a professor at UCLA Law School.
It’s a fraught undertaking, to be sure. In the United States, the First Amendment protects speech to a degree rare elsewhere in the world. But these are extraordinary times. It’s not just that lies have become more common in the age of MAGA, perverting the public’s ability to make informed decisions. It’s also that the societal norms hold ing lies in check have faded. “Trump has made it more fashionable to lie,” says David Schultz, a law professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, “and there seem to be few political or legal consequences for lying.” …
Such a law would not be much of a stretch. Indeed, one such case is already underway. In 2021, a Florida man named Douglass Mackey was arrested and charged with conspiring to deprive individuals of their right to vote after he sent out tweets in 2016 falsely claiming that Hillary Clinton supporters could vote by sending a text. Mackey’s lawyers are trying to get the charges tossed, claiming that they violate his First Amendment rights. Hasen’s proposed law would not punish Trump for lying about the election. “Trump’s lies about the last election being stolen, undermining people’s confidence in the legitimacy of the electoral process — these are contested questions about how the world works,” Hasen says. “Those are not empirically verifiable statements.” …”
I write about them all the time.
In this case, it is law professors brainstorming ways to erode the First Amendment in order to squash dissent and impose their own views on the public. These people are a menace. I spend a lot of my time trying to foment hatred against the people who most deserve it.
Note: I am a “semi-fascist authoritarian” for supporting the First Amendment. “Democracy Defenders” are defending democracy against the threat of ordinary people voting in elections.