• Pennomi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    24 hours ago

    Oof, the back of those cards is designed as a shooting target. So much for plausible deniability.

    Probably technically falls under free speech regardless.

    • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      23 hours ago

      No different from the dozens of other targets made as targets with the face of political figures centered as the bullseye, imo. If one is fine, it’s all fine.

      • peregrin5@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        23 hours ago

        Just as credible as social media platforms claiming they protect free speech, or corporations that claim they care about anything other than shareholders profits. Or Trump claiming he doesn’t support project 2025.

      • BarbecueCowboy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        21 hours ago

        The theory is that you could stretch it to fall under incitement, not sure if something quite like it has ever been prosecuted, but near everyone includes similar disclaimers if they want to do something like this.