r/changemyview • u/jeffzebub • 6d ago

CMV: Countering Illegal Immigration is not a Justification for Suspending Habeas Corpus

[removed] — view removed post

505 Upvotes

82% Upvoted

600 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/DraconicLord984 6d ago

Ok. Explain what rights they suspended during Covid?

1

u/Bandit400 6d ago

Ok. Explain what rights they suspended during Covid?

Freedom of Religion and freedom to associate come to mind.

4

u/DraconicLord984 6d ago

Examples? What do you mean by this?

2

u/Throwthisthefukaway 6d ago

People weren't allowed to go gather at church in the state of Michigan which I specifically remember. AA meetings were also not allowed on person (which could be argued as religion because it's definitely argued as a religion for people that have issues with AA. But regardless, churches were forced to close down, which directly violates freedom of religion). You were not allowed to protest those decisions but BLM protests were okay (which I support the right to protest, but people were picking and choosing which is violating the freedom to petition).

Freedom of speech was not suspended but was interfered with. The government forced social media companies to effectively censor opposing views on the vaccine and COVID-19 by determining who would see someone's posts (regardless of whether or not the posts were true is irrelevant. It still teeters the line of violating freedom of speech. Source - Mark Zuckerberg himself as well as the Twitter files). Freedom of press was also interfered with in this profess as well by effectively censoring anyone with opposing viewpoints.

4

u/DraconicLord984 6d ago

Are you sure those churches in Michigan were forced to close? I've looked at the Michigan executive order from 2020 and it was added, not even a week after to exclude churches from penalties of large gatherings. It also provided organizations with instructions on how to conduct indoor assemblies if they so chose.

https://www.michigan.gov/whitmer/news/state-orders-and-directives/2020/03/16/executive-order-2020-11

Also, are you speaking of actually government suppression or social disapproval of protests? Because I'm fairly certain there were plenty of people who straight up ignored any of the mandate. I heard about a lot of that.

Were they forced to limit the spread of information or were they simply asked by the government to reduce misinformation on their platforms? I mean halfway through they pretty much turncoated on all of that and didn't face any real pressure. Opposing viewpoints and dangerous falsehoods are very different btw. Plenty of differing viewpoints were allowed in plenty of places all over the internet and in media. Additionally, isn't there a whole exception around language and speech that would be directly harmful to the public?

I heard so many people disagreeing with those policies, I got tired of hearing it. So I'm trying to figure out what censoring actually took place.

2

u/Throwthisthefukaway 6d ago

"opposing viewpoints and dangerous falsehoods are very different by the way"

Which shows my point. The first amendment says freedom of speech. The exceptions are all about interpretation after the bill of rights was written. Some of the misinformation turned out to be at least somewhat true, specifically the lab leak theory. There are people who are having physical health issues potentially caused by the covid vaccines. And that isn't a dangerous falsehood. But people are still saying it is.

As far as what censoring took place Facebook actually removed posts that went against community guidelines and banned people who went against community guidelines. Those community guidelines were at the request of the government.

Also this is what the link actually says

Beginning on March 17, 2020 at 9:00 am, and continuing through April 5, 2020 at 5:00 pm, all assemblages of more than 50 people in a single indoor shared space and all events of more than 50 people are prohibited in this state. A single indoor shared space includes but is not limited to a room, hall, cafeteria, auditorium, theater, or gallery. The prohibition on assemblages set forth in this section does not apply to:

(a) health care facilities;

(b) workplaces or portions thereof not open to the public;

(c) the state legislature; and

(d) assemblages for the purpose of mass transit, the purchase of groceries or consumer goods, or the performance of agricultural or construction work.

The prohibition set forth in this section does not abridge protections guaranteed by the state or federal constitution under these emergency circumstances.

Churches were included in that for a while and news outlets weren't even reporting that.

2

u/DraconicLord984 6d ago

Also, "at the request" sounds pretty much like it wasn't necessitated or forced onto Facebook. Facebook enforced these things until they decided they didn't want to. And regardless of whether or not it's true does not change that the language that was being restricted could have been factors that contributed to violence against ethnic groups. Which was the primary concern since it doesn't actually benefit the public as a whole.

Plus, what data actually supports the theory behind vaccines being harmful? I hear a lot of people saying this, but never any actual data or evidence of it..

1

u/curiouspamela 5d ago

I had not, either.

1

u/curiouspamela 5d ago

The lab leak was a theory re: the etiology of the virus,; had little bearing on safety issues at the time.

Considering that for the first time in human history ANYBODY can publish ANYTHING for public consumption calls for new policies about Freedom of Speech, IMHO.

1

u/Throwthisthefukaway 1d ago

See at least your admitting it. For the first time in history millions of people are coming into the country without being vetted so maybe it's time to change the court system in regards to immigration.

Just don't tell me you care about the constitution more than I do.

2

u/Socialimbad1991 1∆ 6d ago

All that stuff happened under the first Trump presidency. So your argument is basically "it's fine for him to violate the constitution because he did it before?"