• invalid_name@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      9 hours ago

      Yes, but only because the exotic phallus and scrotum piercings he has are designed to have a hypnotic effect. Then he grabs them while they’re dazed.

      • invalid_name@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        9 hours ago

        No, no. He’s in the child trafficking van with the kkk wrap. The really gaudy one. Can’t miss it.

        Honestly I don’t know how he drives it with that huge swastika obscuring the windshield.

        • ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 hour ago

          You say wrap but I’m imagining an econoline van with a peaked roof made to look like a giant KKK hood doing jumps like the dumb and dumber dog van.

        • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 hours ago

          oh yeah! it was in the background when he did that interview where he forgot the mic was live and said “voters are all dumb cunts god i can’t wait to get my hands on all that sweet tax money so i can piss it away on tropical holidays and boats”

          • invalid_name@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 hour ago

            Yes, and thank you for trimming all the slurs and the half hour antisemitic (but also zionist?) rant out.

        • invalid_name@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 hour ago

          But its not impersonating people. Jones has said under oath that the ‘Alex jones’ character is fictional ™©®'d fictional character he plays for entertainment, whose views are not his own.

        • pyre@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          yeah but when was the last time you heard someone win a defamation case

  • Fubarberry@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    27
    ·
    edit-2
    8 hours ago

    Misinformation laws can quickly get 1984-ish. In the US both political parties have different ideas on what’s true and what’s misinformation, I don’t really like the idea of criminalizing “misinformation” when the accepted narrative will change every 4-8 years.

    Edit: Surprisingly, this is now one of my most downvoted comments ever on Lemmy. Do you guys really want the government deciding what you can or can’t say online?

    • snrkl@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      6 hours ago

      I agree with the potential for Orwellian uses, and I agree with the need for SOME kind of repercussion for active misinformation peddling and manipulation of the masses. (As opposed to honest mistakes).

      Like all things in this world, I feel topics like this are nuanced and the current need to make everything into a chalk/cheese divisive issue is counter productive. I feel we need mature people who can navigate that nuance without the need for forced polarisation of the topics.

      I’ll also add some context for people outside of Australia:

      The Onion / Shovel headline is cunning, as locals with knowledge will tell you the target of the the parody article (Peter Dutton) is a well known user of defamation suits to go after people who say things about him he feels are untrue.

    • Fedizen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      9 hours ago

      “can get” implies there’s examples of like misinfo laws becoming orwellian. I cannot find such examples. Laws that penalize people for knowingly lying for profit, clout, etc tend to curb bombastic discourse. These standards are common in defamation suits. Extending them to more media makes sense.

      What’s always orwellian is like anti terrorism laws where laws intended to curb oppositional rhetoric or groups become applied on large swaths of people.

      The actual laws they prosecuted Assange for, for instance were anti espionage laws if I recall.

    • imPastaSyndrome@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Sure, and this one probably wasn’t great but also the article shows why there’s of course a valuable line

    • darthelmet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Yeah. To me the misinformation conversation just sounds like”why are the poors talking to each other instead of listening to US?”

      If we had a misinformation law in 2001, would it have applied to the news outlets or gov officials who were lying about the Iraq war?

      There is A real problem in how we sort out second hand evidence, it’s just that this problem didn’t magically start when social media became a thing and it won’t be fixed by returning authority to those same old institutions who were lying to us in the past.