This is a subverse designed to encourage adult discussion spanning the entirety of the political spectrum. All are welcome, from Libertarians to Authoritarians, Democrats to Republicans, An Caps to Anarchists, Socialists to Fascists to Communists, Green, Blue, Black, White, Purple with Yellow Polka dots, whatever color, persuasion, or affiliation, this is a place for you to post your thoughts, articles, and engage in discussion meant to foster understanding.
Politics is best when we try to avoid personal attacks, limits on discussion, censorship, trolling, shilling, racism, homophobia, antisemitism, or any other forms of bigotry and malfeasance.
Election 2020 Politics Sticky
Politics 2017 Christmas Theme sticky
Nov 2016 sticky on new CSS
This subverse belongs to the community of users. Users are invited to post meta-threads about v/politics and I will gladly sticky them. @flyawayhigh
Use the "Report Spam" link to report spam and someone will review the report. J-mods have the ability to remove duplicate noncommercial spam.
v/politics is for all politics.
v/uspolitics is for US politics only.
v/worldpolitics is for international or non-US politics.
v/politicalnews is dedicated to virtually censor-free politics and news
v/news is for news around the world.
v/usnews is for domestic news only.
Sort: Top
[–] NoRoyalty 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Can we make it retroactive for 36 years?
[–] ScottRockview 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Even a law that compels the press to only tell the objective truth would be great.....but they'd still use shit tactics like lots of "allegedly" and (((anonymous sources))).
[–] My_Name_is_Not_Sure ago
So nothing would change is what you’re saying?
[–] kommisar6 ago
I like the NYT test. Even though a lot of the press is doing bad things, this will not always be the case. Instead I would look at anti-trust remedy to break up large media conglomerates and possibly a law converting craigslist or similar want ads sites into public utilities whose proceeds are funneled back into local papers.
[–] lanre ago
I'd prefer no libel laws period and that people would just use their heads and not trust stuff blindly, but if we're going to have them then surely lying media should be held to the same standards as everyone else.
[–] [deleted] ago
[–] Thisismyvoatusername ago
This isn’t really about politics, though, regardless how the author of the piece couched it. It is a question of whether the First Amendment really should impose different standards for libel depending on the notoriety of the person claiming libel. To be honest, I’ve always felt the reasoning in Sullivan v. New York Times was a bit suspect. But it has been settled law so I learned it and have applied it in practice.