3 ms·

Reminds me of Douglass Mackey, who was convicted for sharing deceptive memes before the 2016 election that falsely told Clinton supporters they could vote by te

by bko 5mo ago

Reminds me of Douglass Mackey, who was convicted for sharing deceptive memes before the 2016 election that falsely told Clinton supporters they could vote by text message. He was sentenced to 7 months in federal prison in 2023.

reillyse 5mo ago
Why does it remind you of that case? The two seem quite different.
quickthrowman 5mo ago
There’s a large difference between tampering with an election by spreading misinformation (illegal) and posting a picture that expresses an opinion (free speech)
- trollbridge 5mo ago
  Well, his conviction was eventually overturned on appeal.
- strictnein 5mo ago
  > There’s a large difference between tampering with an election by spreading misinformation (illegal) Spreading misinformation about elections is broadly legal. "Are election-related false statements protected by the First Amendment? Generally yes, but not if they seek to interfere with the process of voting." https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2024/08/Fact-Sheet-False-Misleading-and-Intimidating-Election-Information.pdf https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-content/uploads/sites...
- billfor 5mo ago
  No there isn't, according to the appeals court which overturned it.
  - deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
jerrac 5mo ago
I wondered if anyone else noticed that. I upvoted. Hopefully more people will as well to balance out the bias. To those of you downvoting, please articulate why you think something deserves a downvote. As it is, I can only assume rather hypocritical double standards. Someone saying something anti-Trump is ok, but someone saying something anti-Leftist (or Clinton) is not? (For the record, I 100% am on the side of the guy who was jailed. Just as I am on for the guy who retweeted that meme in 2016. Abusing government power is unacceptable no matter who it benefits.)
- ceejayoz 5mo ago
  In one case, the meme was accurate - the photo, the quote, and its attribution were all accurate, and the cops knew that. It never made it to trial, for obvious reasons. In the other, it was false information, a grand jury indicted, and a jury convicted. The appeal rested on the government struggling to demonstrate a) anyone actively fell for the information and b) the conspiracy element. (https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/OPN/23-7577_opn.pdf https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/OPN/23-7577_opn.pdf) Somehow, this distinction is... bias?
  - jerrac 5mo ago
    In both cases the reason someone was persecuted was they offended someone in power. And the system eventually ruled in their favor. That is the similarity. If you view one of those cases as a bad result, then chances are you are biased. That said, if you downvote because you have looked into the cases enough to think that that similarity is not valid, and then you can articulate it (like the person I'm replying too did) then I'd consider that fine. (Assuming they downvoted, they may not have.) I may still think there's some bias there, but it's not uninformed bias. If you can't articulate a reason you want to downvote, then it's bias and emotion fueling your downvote. Which, I don't consider to be a valid reason to downvote. As a side note, I think we all need to be aware of how similar the things we hear about the "bad" side are. The comments I see about Trump weaponizing the Department of Justice to oppress people is pretty much exactly what I saw said about Biden weaponizing the Department of Justice to oppress people during his administration. I also have seen MANY comments where if you replace "Biden" or "Trump" with the other name, you end up with a comment the other side would make. I think that should trigger some self-reflection. I know I'm still trying to figure out what to think about it.
kube-system 5mo ago
Fraud and similar activities often do not qualify as protected speech under the first amendment. Political opinion is always protected.
fortran77 5mo ago
It doesn't remind me of this at all. That person may have been "joking" but it could reasonably be construed as an attempt to subert or manipulate an election.

by bko 5mo ago

reillyse 5mo ago

Why does it remind you of that case? The two seem quite different.

quickthrowman 5mo ago

There’s a large difference between tampering with an election by spreading misinformation (illegal) and posting a picture that expresses an opinion (free speech)

trollbridge 5mo ago
Well, his conviction was eventually overturned on appeal.
strictnein 5mo ago
> There’s a large difference between tampering with an election by spreading misinformation (illegal) Spreading misinformation about elections is broadly legal. "Are election-related false statements protected by the First Amendment? Generally yes, but not if they seek to interfere with the process of voting." https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2024/08/Fact-Sheet-False-Misleading-and-Intimidating-Election-Information.pdf https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-content/uploads/sites...
billfor 5mo ago
No there isn't, according to the appeals court which overturned it.
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]

jerrac 5mo ago

I wondered if anyone else noticed that. I upvoted. Hopefully more people will as well to balance out the bias. To those of you downvoting, please articulate why you think something deserves a downvote. As it is, I can only assume rather hypocritical double standards. Someone saying something anti-Trump is ok, but someone saying something anti-Leftist (or Clinton) is not? (For the record, I 100% am on the side of the guy who was jailed. Just as I am on for the guy who retweeted that meme in 2016. Abusing government power is unacceptable no matter who it benefits.)

ceejayoz 5mo ago
In one case, the meme was accurate - the photo, the quote, and its attribution were all accurate, and the cops knew that. It never made it to trial, for obvious reasons. In the other, it was false information, a grand jury indicted, and a jury convicted. The appeal rested on the government struggling to demonstrate a) anyone actively fell for the information and b) the conspiracy element. (https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/OPN/23-7577_opn.pdf https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/OPN/23-7577_opn.pdf) Somehow, this distinction is... bias?
- jerrac 5mo ago
  In both cases the reason someone was persecuted was they offended someone in power. And the system eventually ruled in their favor. That is the similarity. If you view one of those cases as a bad result, then chances are you are biased. That said, if you downvote because you have looked into the cases enough to think that that similarity is not valid, and then you can articulate it (like the person I'm replying too did) then I'd consider that fine. (Assuming they downvoted, they may not have.) I may still think there's some bias there, but it's not uninformed bias. If you can't articulate a reason you want to downvote, then it's bias and emotion fueling your downvote. Which, I don't consider to be a valid reason to downvote. As a side note, I think we all need to be aware of how similar the things we hear about the "bad" side are. The comments I see about Trump weaponizing the Department of Justice to oppress people is pretty much exactly what I saw said about Biden weaponizing the Department of Justice to oppress people during his administration. I also have seen MANY comments where if you replace "Biden" or "Trump" with the other name, you end up with a comment the other side would make. I think that should trigger some self-reflection. I know I'm still trying to figure out what to think about it.

kube-system 5mo ago

Fraud and similar activities often do not qualify as protected speech under the first amendment. Political opinion is always protected.

fortran77 5mo ago

It doesn't remind me of this at all. That person may have been "joking" but it could reasonably be construed as an attempt to subert or manipulate an election.