comment
stringlengths 1
8.79k
| context
sequencelengths 0
817
|
|---|---|
>
In war, certain civil liberties are curtailed. It is this way, it’s always been this way, and it will always be this way. War is not a game. It’s not good that this happens, of course, but it’s one of the many reasons war is bad. | [
"Just curious, how did the US regulate media during WWII if at all? Obviously the war department was churning out war news and propaganda, but did they censor/restrict any media from being published?",
">\n\nYes, absolutely. They formed the Office of Censorship and heavily regulated the press, especially radio. But it was almost entirely geared towards preventing information on troop movements and weather from getting out, and coded enemy messages from getting in. They didn't force stations to broadcast propaganda or ban negative stories, and most of the restrictions were followed voluntarily.\nThere was also the Office of War Information which was responsible for producing propaganda and rejected film scripts that were critical or negative regarding the war effort - but they did not restrict the press to my knowledge.",
">\n\nSuper interesting! Thanks for sharing. Yes it seems this was a bit more functional about what comes in and out of the country, not necessarily with what’s published domestically as far as swaying public opinion. Also TIL the catch phrase “loose lips sink ships” came from this agency.\nThe voluntary aspect is somewhat enlightening as to how unified the country was in the war effort. The cynic in me makes me even more curious if there was other censorship at play outside of this agency that helped create that sentiment. I feel like someone would have replied about some landmark Supreme Court case by now though if that were the case.",
">\n\nAmerican's have a curious ability to get in line when there is a clear and present danger to the nation. Someone summed it up with \"You can always count on American's to do the right thing when they have no other option.\"",
">\n\nWinston Churchill famously stated “Americans will always do the right thing, only after they have tried everything else.\"\nIs that the quote you are thinking of?",
">\n\nIt was attributed to him, but tracing things down, it was apparent not said by him and I’ve heard both versions.",
">\n\nLawmakers have touted the bill as an effort to bring Ukraine's media laws closer to European Union standards as the country makes a bid to join the 27-member bloc. They have also argued that it will help counter Russian propaganda as Russia's invasion of Ukraine nears its one-year anniversary.\nBut organizations representing journalists say the law will erode press freedoms in Ukraine. Under the law, Ukraine's media regulator could block websites that are not registered with the government as news organizations, The Kyiv Independent reported on Friday. \nThe law is at odds with freedoms given to the press in other parts of Europe, the European Federation of Journalists said in a statement on Friday, according to the Times. \nEdit: because some users argued (with justification) that my post kept specific details hidden, I added the rest of the news post. I also checked the Kyiv Independent and it checks out.",
">\n\nWhile this is true, if I'm not mistaken some EU members have still spoken out against the bill - mainly because the new regulatory body will be led/run by the federal government, whereas in the EU they're generally a separate entity from the government run by civilians\nStill a step in the right direction, but I can see where people worry",
">\n\nHow is censorship a right step in any direction?",
">\n\nIt's indeed a double edged sword. On the one hand self-proclaimed news networks might spread their political agenda or incite illegal behaviour, on the other hand it's a real shortcut to control the media. This needs to be handled very carefully and probably by a body that's not interwoven with the government.",
">\n\nThere are few good options in war, especially a total war where the very survival of a country and ethnolinguistic group is at risk. Zelenskyy is probably going a bit far, but it’s hard to really blame him.",
">\n\nDepends on what the censorship is… trying to dispel discontentment with current ruling party or suppressing enemy state misinformation.",
">\n\nI think it's safe to infer the reasoning is to filter propaganda. I don't think there is much discontent with the current ruling party. Zelensky\"s approval ratings have been through the roof. Although, it's an easy power to abuse in the wrong hands.",
">\n\nI mean, can you think of a single instance in history where censorship was a net societal benefit, rolled back when no longer necessary, and not abused over the long-term? Nothing comes to mind.\nJournalists surely also know this to be the case, hence their outspoken opposition to the measure.",
">\n\nAbraham Lincoln suspending habeas corpus in the civil war is probably the best example for Americans in here. Would it be tolerated during peacetime? hell no. Would it be tolerated when the entire country is at an inflection point like the Ukraine is in 2023 and the US in 1861. Yes.\nedit: left out Abe's last name",
">\n\nWhat's it like to be on a first-name basis with Abraham Lincoln?",
">\n\nIt does make sense to block Russian \"news\" channels but its easily open to abuse",
">\n\nThis. Sounds like the Sedition Act of 1917. Easy to pass during wartime and makes sense, but probably wouldn’t get passed during peacetime. \nIt also doesn’t help that Ukraine was like #31 on the world’s corruption index prior to the war.",
">\n\nI vaguely recall reading that prior to the war Ukraine was the second most corrupt country in Europe, behind Russia.",
">\n\nThat's pretty much why Zelensky won the elections, he ran on an anti-corruption platform and has actually done a lot to combat it",
">\n\nLike what?",
">\n\nno more oligarchs",
">\n\nYou really think he ended the oligarchy? And it will only get 100x worse after the war when western businessmen come in to “fix” the country.",
">\n\nLmao this. We should all remember that he was also named in the Panama papers for holding 20+ million overseas",
">\n\nWhats so weird about successful actor having 20million to their name?",
">\n\nThey’ve been blocking the BBC on and off for years.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest lessons the world will learn from this conflict is that while Ukraine is/are the good guys… they are far, far behind a system that is akin to the western world.\nmy father’s grandfather was from Ukraine.\nAs he likes to say, Ukraine had 30 years to get their shit together so that when this day (02/24/22, Russia’s invasion which was always an inevitability if you know Ukraine, Ukraine’s history and geopolitics) arrived they’d be more than just militarily prepared.\nThey would be a part of NATO.. but Ukraine wanted to dip its toes in both democracy and wide-scale corruption.",
">\n\nFrom what I understand, the oligarchs and who grabbed up all the candy when the USSR piñata ruptured have been a big part of the problem. They have lost a lot of power and wealth, and some experts believe that this could create a political space for serious reform. I sure hope so!",
">\n\nExactly not to mention many oligarchs actually own news outlets and even television stations. I get what they’re trying to do given the war, but they have to be careful with the execution of it because it’s a step away from authoritarian control over news and media. News and media should be free but within limits too. Ex. Carlson tucker on Fox News in the US isn’t exactly unbiased. If there was a Ukrainian counterpart, they’d try to shut it down.",
">\n\nA nation in war time does not have the luxury of entertaining 100% freedom of information, especially considering the constant misinformation campaigns waged by Russia on top of its land war.",
">\n\nShutting on and off news websites? Banning political parties? BAWWW TYRANNY.\n\nPeople should not be naive, Ukraine is at war, the survival of their nation is at stake.",
">\n\nPrecisely, and psyops against Ukraine are extremely active.\nI hope they can reach Western values one day, but this is war against a much bigger Country that does not play fair. \nLet's let Ukraine win this war first and give them some time to rebuild before their culture becomes more Western.",
">\n\nHere in Adelaide, Australia, we did that. In the days before websites so he wasn't blocked, but a certain editor knew he wasn't welcome and had to leave town. He was an awful liar and very divisive. Inherited a newspaper from his dad called 'The News'.\nAfter he left town he started a company named after the Adelaide paper, NewsCorp. Rupert Murdoch was the name he went by (though his first name is really Keith, not Rupert). Wonder whatever happened to him?",
">\n\nHe got mad and decided to ruin the world.",
">\n\n\"I think it's good when we do it\" is a dangerous justification",
">\n\nYes, it is very similar to how the freedom of press declined in Russia. All medias were required to be registered by some governmental department in order to \"control the flow of information from abroad\". In no time it became the instrument of banning unwanted media.\nThough I admit banning Russian state media is for the better. Could they be banned in Russia itself, too?",
">\n\nThe thing is who defines that the media is pro-Russian. While it stays for the Ukrainian government to define, Ukrainian freedom of speech basically is being destroyed.",
">\n\nNot really enough information in the article to make an informed opinion on this.\n \nDecision was made by parliament, Zelenskyy's role in this is to sign the law, much like other world leaders don't necessarily agree with everything they have to sign.\nThe article mentions this is to allow them to ban websites not listed as media, which to me means the ability to ban any website if it isn't a registered media website. So, specifically to not allow them to block news websites so long as they are registered.\nAlso mentions this was to try and bring them more in line with EU countries, while at the same time saying it does the opposite.\n \nDo we have a link to the actual text of the new law?",
">\n\nSlippery slope",
">\n\nMost of the west have already blocked RT for their disinformation.",
">\n\nPrivate companies blocking is one thing, but governments is very different.\nA lot of laws created with \"good intentions\" are very often used for bad things, especially in countries with long history of corruption like Ukraine.",
">\n\nFrance is blocking RT",
">\n\nThese things happen during war, in every country.\nThe real test is seeing what laws will be repealed once this is all over imo.",
">\n\n\nThe real test is seeing what laws will be repealed once this is all over\n\nNone of them will be. Governments never voluntarily surrender any measure of control over the people. That's why the US is still officially in a state of national emergency 22 years after 9/11: so that the government elites can keep using their \"temporary\" emergency powers.",
">\n\nThe exact opposite has been happening in a lot of cases. The war has been used as an excuse to carry out a lot of deregulation and liberalization",
">\n\nLike when they banned left wing opposition parties?",
">\n\nArticle says websites not registered as media could be blocked. Kind of the opposite of what the headline says...",
">\n\nGovernments never relinquish power once they have it. Look at how the patriot act went from protecting our country to taking our rights. This is not a slippery slope. This is what corruption looks like. I really want Ukraine to succeed but decisions like this gives me trepidation.",
">\n\nRussia China bans websites \"fascists, ugly despots, violating human rights\" \nsomeone else does it \"understandable, well within their rights, good step\"\nAn accurate portrayal of exceptionalism",
">\n\nPeople have a hard time applying the same logic to things they like.",
">\n\nCool, there is certainly zero propaganda coming out Ukraine, for sure.",
">\n\nHa!",
">\n\nThat sounds like a healthy and not at all a government propaganda machine.",
">\n\nIt’s their country, let ‘em do as they choose. I can understand it during wartime, but in peacetime it sounds like one of those slippery slopes….",
">\n\nConsidering that before the war started everyone was talking about how corrupt the Ukraine government was I'd expect this to be abused for the duration of the war and after.",
">\n\nWestern media can be just as bad at spouting Russian propaganda. It seems like the editors have no ability to disseminate when I see headlines on APNews/Reuters weekly about how \"Putin is ready to negotiate but Ukraine refuses\".",
">\n\nI mean, this Business Insider article is a pretty fantastic case in point:\nare there reasonable concerns about this law? Yup.\nAre there extremely good reasons to pass it regardless, in a state of war against an adversary which thrives off propaganda? Also yes.\nWill Business Insider try and \"both sides\" this to get the \"BWUH 1984\" crowd arguing about their article? Final yes.",
">\n\nWell, Ukraine has never been the democratic heaven that the west is portraying it as in order to feed the propaganda. It's the most corrupt country in Europe and political opposition prior to the invasion was also suppressed.\nOne of Elensky's opposition leaders was in house arrest, although I can't remember his name. I think he escaped after the war started.",
">\n\nFreedom Fighter bans Dissent",
">\n\nThis is never good",
">\n\nYou either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.\n… Or maybe it’s to block Russian propaganda; idk",
">\n\nGovernment controlled media… if anyone thinks this is a good idea then you’re wrong",
">\n\nWhen has censorship ever been on the right side of history?",
">\n\nLincoln infamously censored free speech and the press during the American civil war, and often arrested (without due process!) anyone publishing media opposing the draft or expressing sympathy for the south",
">\n\n\"don't listen to that propaganda, listen to this propaganda\"",
">\n\nAnd so it begins.",
">\n\nI wonder how many pro-working class news outlets will suddenly be removed because they’re critical of Ukraine’s bourgeois government.",
">\n\nThe west is gonna act shocked when this war is over and it turns out Ukraine is still a corrupt place, but saying that makes me pro Russian or some shit",
">\n\nWhat irks me is them saying that being in the EU will supposedly make things better…",
">\n\nAs a country at war, censorship is not surprising. What will be telling is how they behave once the war is over.",
">\n\nSomething a totally not fascist would do, right?",
">\n\nwhen news reporting is killing your soldiers",
">\n\nHe already banned opposing political parties. What’s next?",
">\n\nThey also banned Russian and Rusyn languages schools. Its an ethnostate, simple as.",
">\n\nWar tends to be bad for freedom of speech. The Ukrainian people have a right to hear what pro-Russian media is saying.",
">\n\nAnd yet people claim that this guy is the savior of democracy? Aahahahahah, m'kay.",
">\n\nHonestly this isn't news. Countries are well known for curtailing news reporting during wartime. The US and UK did it during WW2. You don't want news media reporting the location of your troops or movements. \nThe test to democracy isn't what's passed during wartime, it's what's rescinded when war is over. When Ukraine eventually wins, the question will be how well do they transition to functioning, minimally corrupt transparent democracy. Will Zelensky and his successors freely give up power? Will the people elect fascist white nationalists who contributed to the war effort? The future remains to be seen. Well intentions can easily be lead astray.",
">\n\n“Could” is probably doing a lot of work here.",
">\n\nThe problem with that is that it shouldn’t. Laws need to be scoped heavily, or they will be rife with abuse.",
">\n\nSo censorship is suddenly ok because someone that’s not Russia did it.",
">\n\nThe headline sounds terrible. However reading helps add sense to it. \nBut I can't help to wonder whether blocking news websites due to \"weaponized media\" is a good thing or bad thing. I feel there's a gray line here that could be getting crossed and one has to question \"Is this propaganda that's being blocked, or is this our country censoring media brainwashing us in an attempt to strengthen their resolve?\" \nI'm all for Ukraine in this war, but in terms of a country censoring media, it's well.... a sticky subject. What action is the correct action when your enemies are using it as a weapon to confuse the public opinion?",
">\n\nI have no problem with this, RT is blocked in my country and Europe",
">\n\nafaik this is just ukraine setting up a media regulator along EU directives - all countries must have these mechanisms.",
">\n\nEU directives aren’t regulated by the government. Ukraine’s will be",
">\n\nDuring war time, I think that's fine. It's important to minimize Russian propaganda and to make sure no military information gets leaked.",
">\n\nIf the independent regulator can't be trusted during war time, why can it be trusted during peace time?",
">\n\nTo be very clear, this is many steps too far for peacetime and this bill isn't limited to wartime.\nI'm not Ukrainian and not an expert on the bill by any means but placing this under the same umbrella as the ~~federal~~ national government is dangerous and exposes the country to big problems down the road.\nI could defend it if the bill explicitly was for wartime. And many bills have expiration dates. But this is not good.",
">\n\nBut I thought he was about democracy?",
">\n\nGood if it's for the russian news websites only!\nNow, how about Ukraine's president fix that law forbidding romanian language to be taught to the romanian minority in Ukraine?\nAr we good neighbors respecting each other or are we not?",
">\n\nFinally someone who understands what is going on here.",
">\n\nGenius",
">\n\nAuto correct typo in my first post! Fixed.\nNot at all supporting suppression of dissent, but there has to be some way to block intentionally slander and misinformation, the hawking of all out lies through garbage like Alex Jones from bending the public discourse, and causing serious social harm. \nParading conspiracy theories or promoting propaganda created by the FSB to destabilize democracy isn't journalism, and isn't news. Legit journalism runs on facts and as such self corrects as better information comes to light. Propaganda either points to a new distraction or digs deeper into a lie, as do its adherents.",
">\n\nNo idea what people are complaining about. Ukraine had pro-Russian politicians in the parliament, russian fake news and pro-russian KGB \"church\" freely acting in Ukraine for years right before the invasion. The real question is why the didn't shut down them long before.",
">\n\nThe Smith act of 1940 comes to mind.\nUkraine is under threat of genocide. Let's see what happens after they win.",
">\n\nWe need to close/block russian or pro-russian websites.",
">\n\nOh no!",
">\n\nI just know its going to be a dark day if news reporters/programs are no longer allowed to make up news and are required to tell the entire story about something. \nSadly if you take away the freedom to blabber from a roof top, you also take away freedom of press",
">\n\nWhy not, news websites are a weapon and can be used by either side.",
">\n\nHmmmm. Interesting",
">\n\nThe beginning of the end",
">\n\nSuch a fascist",
">\n\nChurches next?",
">\n\nAlready",
">\n\nIt's very reasonable to find this offputting, but a ton of westerners are showing their chauvinism in this thread. Acting like any/every NATO country hasn't/wouldn't do this in times of war or great conflict is just asinine, governments pretty much everywhere will regulate whose propaganda is legal and whose isn't. Not saying it's always justified, but many westerners are acting like their shit don't stink.",
">\n\nBaltics and lot of EU countries have banned russian propoganda chanels. I agree with this. Russian propoganda is no joke and i would not recomend it for uninitiated.",
">\n\nThey didn’t ban Russian propaganda channels. Law allows government to block any news website they feel necessary. Given the track record of corruption in Ukrainian governance, this can’t be good.\nEdit: grammar",
">\n\nHaving a standard of what qualifies as news while engaged in a propaganda attack from a country several times your size if propferly monitored information through a board and independent laws could be a net positive\nI’m the USA the repeal of the fairness doctorine is often sited as a reason the news ended up with broadcasters telling people not to take a vaccine during a pandemic",
">\n\nWonder if Zelenskky will be Ukraine's ~~Dictator~~ President in 10 years time.",
">\n\nGet your popcorn while redditors try to tell you why this is a good thing and Zelensky can do no wrong",
">\n\nYikes",
">\n\nUkraine was corrupt as all hell before Russia invaded, and continue corrupt and not worthy of trust. Just because they're fighting for their sovereignty against Putin's evil ass doesn't mean they get a blank check to do whatever the fuck they want and pass it off as correct or for some greater good. This is authoritarian bullshit, nothing else.",
">\n\nIt's quite interesting to see the Zelensky fan boys doing their mental gymnastics to defend this policy. Having a government control what you can see is not good at all: it's a tactic thar has been used by most of the worst rulers in history: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.",
">\n\nI can understand why but honestly I think it’s a very slippery slope that most humans aren’t able to handle. Where’s the line at what is ok and what isn’t. A human decides that and humans are fallible.",
">\n\nThey were right to question this move. I hope the good President/Warrior isn't losing his head. This war is insane.",
">\n\nOne the one hand not too good depending on Implementation. One the other hand the legal framework to go against russian propaganda, misinformation and other Media based attenpts against ukraine.",
">\n\nThere is a lot of anti-Ukraine posts on OP’s profile, take this news with a grain of salt",
">\n\nThe UK blocked Russia Today and Sputnik from UK Satellites to stop their propoganda. It's a sensible thing to do in times of conflict.. we did the same to Nazi Germany also.",
">\n\nI think I just lost all respect for this guy",
">\n\nSecond most corrupt country in Europe (after Russia)... What else do you expect.",
">\n\nTough to balance government overreach against foreign interference.",
">\n\nThat's not good.",
">\n\nDon't pull a \"Russia\" bro. Wrong path to be taking.",
">\n\nYou do realize Russian propaganda channels are there and available to zombify people?\nI have spent so much of my personal time to report Youtube Channel24 videos and you have to show in each video where there is an explicit piece where there was a terrorist speech, it is tedious !! Also, noone seem to read an article cause the content is not like that at all",
">\n\nFor some people (especially here on reddit lmao) russian propaganda is any piece of informations you disagree with, and anyone saying it is either a bot or russian troll",
">\n\nRemember when the Russians invaded claiming there were Nazis in Ukraine?\nPepperidge Farms remembers.",
">\n\nPutin is not the good guy, but this doesn't mean Zelensky and the Ukranian government are a bunch of angels.",
">\n\nHe has cracked down on unions too.",
">\n\nDuring the civil war Lincoln has confederate sympathizing reports thrown in jail without trial. \nThis is not new",
">\n\nSomething seriously off with this man,",
">\n\nI’m sure when peace arrives, and one day Zelenskyy is replaced by a nefarious leader this law will also be remove right? Right?",
">\n\nLol watching this happen in slow motion while supposed lovers of freedom and the Ukrainian people just worship this man, who is an actor and he’s just gradually changing his role.",
">\n\nFreedom of speech? Hahaha, this is no better than Russia or China.",
">\n\nWhat a fucking dishonest headline. Shame on this publisher.",
">\n\nThis is a heck of a misleading headline, the law outlines blatant Russian propaganda sites as the issue. This is almost as bad as the reporting of them “banning orthodox religion” no they banned the orthodox Russian church, that church was using their religion as a cover to transport information back to Russia.",
">\n\nBad idea.",
">\n\nRussian propaganda is no joke and Ukraine probably needs the ability to block it. It's a shame this wasn't passed as wartime emergency legislation with an automatic repeal date though.",
">\n\nNothing to see here, just the good guys fighting against evil Russia 😅",
">\n\nAnd down the slippery slope we continue to slide.",
">\n\nHalf the problem with war now is the media giving g the game away ... there should 100% be restrictions on what the media can post during war time",
">\n\nWell, this headline is awful. First of all we already have such thing since 2015 I believe (one of popular examples is \"vk\" website), secondly - it's just EU standards. \nBtw we still don't have \"war censorship\", you can critisize government all you want.",
">\n\nImagine defending media censorship. China must be proud",
">\n\nRussia does exactly the same thing blocking websites that they consider to be spreading misinformation. And this is obviously bad.\nYet, the amount of double standards in this thread with people thinking that \"it's fine when Ukraine does it\" is absurd.\nBefore the war Ukraine was always on the top positions of most corrupt countries in Europe. This law WILL be abused.",
">\n\nRemember when he said he wanted to run his country more like a democracy…yeah, he just wants those dollars from the U.S",
">\n\nYup this is not the right way to do stuff... If you really wanna show that you are cleaning up the corruptness in your country then don't start making laws like this shit.",
">\n\nVery freedom loving and democratic",
">\n\nNothing says countering russian propaganda like censorship and more propaganda 👍",
">\n\nWatch Ukraine turn into a brutal dictatorship lead by the dancing with the stars jokey guy.",
">\n\nIts the same laws that govern the EU.",
">\n\nWell the corruption continues. “I think it’s good when we do it” Is not a good justification.",
">\n\nDictator for life",
">\n\nIt should only be valid as long as the war against Russia.",
">\n\nRussian \"new\" Websites, which actually are just propaganda machineries, should ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE be blocked.",
">\n\nUkraine has its own propaganda too.",
">\n\nName one nation in a conflict that doesn't censor and put out nationalistic/propaganda. Edited to clarify.",
">\n\nExactly man, that is why I'm saying that censoring is not the right call. Once the government censors you from reading international media, you are influenced by your own government and you know and think only what they want you to know and think. Having trust in your own government is ok but trusting it blindly is not. It makes you easily influenced by your own government,a puppet and as you said, every nation in conflict is making propaganda.",
">\n\nNo different than really any other country that has been in a total war. I just hope that's it's a temporary war measure, which I'm not sure it is.",
">\n\nTotally normal behavior",
">\n\nSounds like news sensorship to me..",
">\n\nHope rises. Discontent rises slightly.\nBeware of the poet's suicide.\nP.s. This is a game reference",
">\n\n1000% normal in war times. Many countries have done this before. It's impossible for Ukraine not to do this given how much Russia is investing into disinformation. Literally having speaker cars driving through the streets with propaganda 24/7. Broadcasting fake news into Ukraine through all mediums. If they get to a large group of people in the US imagine the amount of people they can influence when it comes to their neighbors.\nThe only way they can get Ukraine to lose the war is to break the people's will to fight and they're doing this by not only bombing schools, playgrounds, hospitals and powerplants to freeze them to death but also spreading propaganda to make the people second guess their leadership",
">\n\nCountries do this all the time. Even the US.\nStop trying to vilify Ukraine to appease that shit cabbage Putin. Russia invaded them, not the other way around.",
">\n\nI love watching people try to balance not being called out on ignoring Ukraine's pre-existing corruption and keeping the \"Ukraine = unquestionable good guys\" narrative.\nThere's nothing that says war HAS to be \"good guys vs bad guys\".",
">\n\nPeople have every right to complain about this. But remember Ukraine is fighting in the fields for their very existence.",
">\n\nZelensky understands Democracy more than people think. He's most likely changing it now because of the WAR so that not much information gets back to the enemy.. Remember when Ukraine did both big successful offensives they had a Media Blackout.",
">\n\nOnly state-approved propaganda is authorized",
">\n\nPeople are dumbasses in this thread, and have no idea how propaganda, and filtering media works. There's a reason why propaganda is dangerous, and there are reasons why it's blocked.\nNarrow minded AF."
] |
>
This definitely isn't suspicious at all | [
"Just curious, how did the US regulate media during WWII if at all? Obviously the war department was churning out war news and propaganda, but did they censor/restrict any media from being published?",
">\n\nYes, absolutely. They formed the Office of Censorship and heavily regulated the press, especially radio. But it was almost entirely geared towards preventing information on troop movements and weather from getting out, and coded enemy messages from getting in. They didn't force stations to broadcast propaganda or ban negative stories, and most of the restrictions were followed voluntarily.\nThere was also the Office of War Information which was responsible for producing propaganda and rejected film scripts that were critical or negative regarding the war effort - but they did not restrict the press to my knowledge.",
">\n\nSuper interesting! Thanks for sharing. Yes it seems this was a bit more functional about what comes in and out of the country, not necessarily with what’s published domestically as far as swaying public opinion. Also TIL the catch phrase “loose lips sink ships” came from this agency.\nThe voluntary aspect is somewhat enlightening as to how unified the country was in the war effort. The cynic in me makes me even more curious if there was other censorship at play outside of this agency that helped create that sentiment. I feel like someone would have replied about some landmark Supreme Court case by now though if that were the case.",
">\n\nAmerican's have a curious ability to get in line when there is a clear and present danger to the nation. Someone summed it up with \"You can always count on American's to do the right thing when they have no other option.\"",
">\n\nWinston Churchill famously stated “Americans will always do the right thing, only after they have tried everything else.\"\nIs that the quote you are thinking of?",
">\n\nIt was attributed to him, but tracing things down, it was apparent not said by him and I’ve heard both versions.",
">\n\nLawmakers have touted the bill as an effort to bring Ukraine's media laws closer to European Union standards as the country makes a bid to join the 27-member bloc. They have also argued that it will help counter Russian propaganda as Russia's invasion of Ukraine nears its one-year anniversary.\nBut organizations representing journalists say the law will erode press freedoms in Ukraine. Under the law, Ukraine's media regulator could block websites that are not registered with the government as news organizations, The Kyiv Independent reported on Friday. \nThe law is at odds with freedoms given to the press in other parts of Europe, the European Federation of Journalists said in a statement on Friday, according to the Times. \nEdit: because some users argued (with justification) that my post kept specific details hidden, I added the rest of the news post. I also checked the Kyiv Independent and it checks out.",
">\n\nWhile this is true, if I'm not mistaken some EU members have still spoken out against the bill - mainly because the new regulatory body will be led/run by the federal government, whereas in the EU they're generally a separate entity from the government run by civilians\nStill a step in the right direction, but I can see where people worry",
">\n\nHow is censorship a right step in any direction?",
">\n\nIt's indeed a double edged sword. On the one hand self-proclaimed news networks might spread their political agenda or incite illegal behaviour, on the other hand it's a real shortcut to control the media. This needs to be handled very carefully and probably by a body that's not interwoven with the government.",
">\n\nThere are few good options in war, especially a total war where the very survival of a country and ethnolinguistic group is at risk. Zelenskyy is probably going a bit far, but it’s hard to really blame him.",
">\n\nDepends on what the censorship is… trying to dispel discontentment with current ruling party or suppressing enemy state misinformation.",
">\n\nI think it's safe to infer the reasoning is to filter propaganda. I don't think there is much discontent with the current ruling party. Zelensky\"s approval ratings have been through the roof. Although, it's an easy power to abuse in the wrong hands.",
">\n\nI mean, can you think of a single instance in history where censorship was a net societal benefit, rolled back when no longer necessary, and not abused over the long-term? Nothing comes to mind.\nJournalists surely also know this to be the case, hence their outspoken opposition to the measure.",
">\n\nAbraham Lincoln suspending habeas corpus in the civil war is probably the best example for Americans in here. Would it be tolerated during peacetime? hell no. Would it be tolerated when the entire country is at an inflection point like the Ukraine is in 2023 and the US in 1861. Yes.\nedit: left out Abe's last name",
">\n\nWhat's it like to be on a first-name basis with Abraham Lincoln?",
">\n\nIt does make sense to block Russian \"news\" channels but its easily open to abuse",
">\n\nThis. Sounds like the Sedition Act of 1917. Easy to pass during wartime and makes sense, but probably wouldn’t get passed during peacetime. \nIt also doesn’t help that Ukraine was like #31 on the world’s corruption index prior to the war.",
">\n\nI vaguely recall reading that prior to the war Ukraine was the second most corrupt country in Europe, behind Russia.",
">\n\nThat's pretty much why Zelensky won the elections, he ran on an anti-corruption platform and has actually done a lot to combat it",
">\n\nLike what?",
">\n\nno more oligarchs",
">\n\nYou really think he ended the oligarchy? And it will only get 100x worse after the war when western businessmen come in to “fix” the country.",
">\n\nLmao this. We should all remember that he was also named in the Panama papers for holding 20+ million overseas",
">\n\nWhats so weird about successful actor having 20million to their name?",
">\n\nThey’ve been blocking the BBC on and off for years.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest lessons the world will learn from this conflict is that while Ukraine is/are the good guys… they are far, far behind a system that is akin to the western world.\nmy father’s grandfather was from Ukraine.\nAs he likes to say, Ukraine had 30 years to get their shit together so that when this day (02/24/22, Russia’s invasion which was always an inevitability if you know Ukraine, Ukraine’s history and geopolitics) arrived they’d be more than just militarily prepared.\nThey would be a part of NATO.. but Ukraine wanted to dip its toes in both democracy and wide-scale corruption.",
">\n\nFrom what I understand, the oligarchs and who grabbed up all the candy when the USSR piñata ruptured have been a big part of the problem. They have lost a lot of power and wealth, and some experts believe that this could create a political space for serious reform. I sure hope so!",
">\n\nExactly not to mention many oligarchs actually own news outlets and even television stations. I get what they’re trying to do given the war, but they have to be careful with the execution of it because it’s a step away from authoritarian control over news and media. News and media should be free but within limits too. Ex. Carlson tucker on Fox News in the US isn’t exactly unbiased. If there was a Ukrainian counterpart, they’d try to shut it down.",
">\n\nA nation in war time does not have the luxury of entertaining 100% freedom of information, especially considering the constant misinformation campaigns waged by Russia on top of its land war.",
">\n\nShutting on and off news websites? Banning political parties? BAWWW TYRANNY.\n\nPeople should not be naive, Ukraine is at war, the survival of their nation is at stake.",
">\n\nPrecisely, and psyops against Ukraine are extremely active.\nI hope they can reach Western values one day, but this is war against a much bigger Country that does not play fair. \nLet's let Ukraine win this war first and give them some time to rebuild before their culture becomes more Western.",
">\n\nHere in Adelaide, Australia, we did that. In the days before websites so he wasn't blocked, but a certain editor knew he wasn't welcome and had to leave town. He was an awful liar and very divisive. Inherited a newspaper from his dad called 'The News'.\nAfter he left town he started a company named after the Adelaide paper, NewsCorp. Rupert Murdoch was the name he went by (though his first name is really Keith, not Rupert). Wonder whatever happened to him?",
">\n\nHe got mad and decided to ruin the world.",
">\n\n\"I think it's good when we do it\" is a dangerous justification",
">\n\nYes, it is very similar to how the freedom of press declined in Russia. All medias were required to be registered by some governmental department in order to \"control the flow of information from abroad\". In no time it became the instrument of banning unwanted media.\nThough I admit banning Russian state media is for the better. Could they be banned in Russia itself, too?",
">\n\nThe thing is who defines that the media is pro-Russian. While it stays for the Ukrainian government to define, Ukrainian freedom of speech basically is being destroyed.",
">\n\nNot really enough information in the article to make an informed opinion on this.\n \nDecision was made by parliament, Zelenskyy's role in this is to sign the law, much like other world leaders don't necessarily agree with everything they have to sign.\nThe article mentions this is to allow them to ban websites not listed as media, which to me means the ability to ban any website if it isn't a registered media website. So, specifically to not allow them to block news websites so long as they are registered.\nAlso mentions this was to try and bring them more in line with EU countries, while at the same time saying it does the opposite.\n \nDo we have a link to the actual text of the new law?",
">\n\nSlippery slope",
">\n\nMost of the west have already blocked RT for their disinformation.",
">\n\nPrivate companies blocking is one thing, but governments is very different.\nA lot of laws created with \"good intentions\" are very often used for bad things, especially in countries with long history of corruption like Ukraine.",
">\n\nFrance is blocking RT",
">\n\nThese things happen during war, in every country.\nThe real test is seeing what laws will be repealed once this is all over imo.",
">\n\n\nThe real test is seeing what laws will be repealed once this is all over\n\nNone of them will be. Governments never voluntarily surrender any measure of control over the people. That's why the US is still officially in a state of national emergency 22 years after 9/11: so that the government elites can keep using their \"temporary\" emergency powers.",
">\n\nThe exact opposite has been happening in a lot of cases. The war has been used as an excuse to carry out a lot of deregulation and liberalization",
">\n\nLike when they banned left wing opposition parties?",
">\n\nArticle says websites not registered as media could be blocked. Kind of the opposite of what the headline says...",
">\n\nGovernments never relinquish power once they have it. Look at how the patriot act went from protecting our country to taking our rights. This is not a slippery slope. This is what corruption looks like. I really want Ukraine to succeed but decisions like this gives me trepidation.",
">\n\nRussia China bans websites \"fascists, ugly despots, violating human rights\" \nsomeone else does it \"understandable, well within their rights, good step\"\nAn accurate portrayal of exceptionalism",
">\n\nPeople have a hard time applying the same logic to things they like.",
">\n\nCool, there is certainly zero propaganda coming out Ukraine, for sure.",
">\n\nHa!",
">\n\nThat sounds like a healthy and not at all a government propaganda machine.",
">\n\nIt’s their country, let ‘em do as they choose. I can understand it during wartime, but in peacetime it sounds like one of those slippery slopes….",
">\n\nConsidering that before the war started everyone was talking about how corrupt the Ukraine government was I'd expect this to be abused for the duration of the war and after.",
">\n\nWestern media can be just as bad at spouting Russian propaganda. It seems like the editors have no ability to disseminate when I see headlines on APNews/Reuters weekly about how \"Putin is ready to negotiate but Ukraine refuses\".",
">\n\nI mean, this Business Insider article is a pretty fantastic case in point:\nare there reasonable concerns about this law? Yup.\nAre there extremely good reasons to pass it regardless, in a state of war against an adversary which thrives off propaganda? Also yes.\nWill Business Insider try and \"both sides\" this to get the \"BWUH 1984\" crowd arguing about their article? Final yes.",
">\n\nWell, Ukraine has never been the democratic heaven that the west is portraying it as in order to feed the propaganda. It's the most corrupt country in Europe and political opposition prior to the invasion was also suppressed.\nOne of Elensky's opposition leaders was in house arrest, although I can't remember his name. I think he escaped after the war started.",
">\n\nFreedom Fighter bans Dissent",
">\n\nThis is never good",
">\n\nYou either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.\n… Or maybe it’s to block Russian propaganda; idk",
">\n\nGovernment controlled media… if anyone thinks this is a good idea then you’re wrong",
">\n\nWhen has censorship ever been on the right side of history?",
">\n\nLincoln infamously censored free speech and the press during the American civil war, and often arrested (without due process!) anyone publishing media opposing the draft or expressing sympathy for the south",
">\n\n\"don't listen to that propaganda, listen to this propaganda\"",
">\n\nAnd so it begins.",
">\n\nI wonder how many pro-working class news outlets will suddenly be removed because they’re critical of Ukraine’s bourgeois government.",
">\n\nThe west is gonna act shocked when this war is over and it turns out Ukraine is still a corrupt place, but saying that makes me pro Russian or some shit",
">\n\nWhat irks me is them saying that being in the EU will supposedly make things better…",
">\n\nAs a country at war, censorship is not surprising. What will be telling is how they behave once the war is over.",
">\n\nSomething a totally not fascist would do, right?",
">\n\nwhen news reporting is killing your soldiers",
">\n\nHe already banned opposing political parties. What’s next?",
">\n\nThey also banned Russian and Rusyn languages schools. Its an ethnostate, simple as.",
">\n\nWar tends to be bad for freedom of speech. The Ukrainian people have a right to hear what pro-Russian media is saying.",
">\n\nAnd yet people claim that this guy is the savior of democracy? Aahahahahah, m'kay.",
">\n\nHonestly this isn't news. Countries are well known for curtailing news reporting during wartime. The US and UK did it during WW2. You don't want news media reporting the location of your troops or movements. \nThe test to democracy isn't what's passed during wartime, it's what's rescinded when war is over. When Ukraine eventually wins, the question will be how well do they transition to functioning, minimally corrupt transparent democracy. Will Zelensky and his successors freely give up power? Will the people elect fascist white nationalists who contributed to the war effort? The future remains to be seen. Well intentions can easily be lead astray.",
">\n\n“Could” is probably doing a lot of work here.",
">\n\nThe problem with that is that it shouldn’t. Laws need to be scoped heavily, or they will be rife with abuse.",
">\n\nSo censorship is suddenly ok because someone that’s not Russia did it.",
">\n\nThe headline sounds terrible. However reading helps add sense to it. \nBut I can't help to wonder whether blocking news websites due to \"weaponized media\" is a good thing or bad thing. I feel there's a gray line here that could be getting crossed and one has to question \"Is this propaganda that's being blocked, or is this our country censoring media brainwashing us in an attempt to strengthen their resolve?\" \nI'm all for Ukraine in this war, but in terms of a country censoring media, it's well.... a sticky subject. What action is the correct action when your enemies are using it as a weapon to confuse the public opinion?",
">\n\nI have no problem with this, RT is blocked in my country and Europe",
">\n\nafaik this is just ukraine setting up a media regulator along EU directives - all countries must have these mechanisms.",
">\n\nEU directives aren’t regulated by the government. Ukraine’s will be",
">\n\nDuring war time, I think that's fine. It's important to minimize Russian propaganda and to make sure no military information gets leaked.",
">\n\nIf the independent regulator can't be trusted during war time, why can it be trusted during peace time?",
">\n\nTo be very clear, this is many steps too far for peacetime and this bill isn't limited to wartime.\nI'm not Ukrainian and not an expert on the bill by any means but placing this under the same umbrella as the ~~federal~~ national government is dangerous and exposes the country to big problems down the road.\nI could defend it if the bill explicitly was for wartime. And many bills have expiration dates. But this is not good.",
">\n\nBut I thought he was about democracy?",
">\n\nGood if it's for the russian news websites only!\nNow, how about Ukraine's president fix that law forbidding romanian language to be taught to the romanian minority in Ukraine?\nAr we good neighbors respecting each other or are we not?",
">\n\nFinally someone who understands what is going on here.",
">\n\nGenius",
">\n\nAuto correct typo in my first post! Fixed.\nNot at all supporting suppression of dissent, but there has to be some way to block intentionally slander and misinformation, the hawking of all out lies through garbage like Alex Jones from bending the public discourse, and causing serious social harm. \nParading conspiracy theories or promoting propaganda created by the FSB to destabilize democracy isn't journalism, and isn't news. Legit journalism runs on facts and as such self corrects as better information comes to light. Propaganda either points to a new distraction or digs deeper into a lie, as do its adherents.",
">\n\nNo idea what people are complaining about. Ukraine had pro-Russian politicians in the parliament, russian fake news and pro-russian KGB \"church\" freely acting in Ukraine for years right before the invasion. The real question is why the didn't shut down them long before.",
">\n\nThe Smith act of 1940 comes to mind.\nUkraine is under threat of genocide. Let's see what happens after they win.",
">\n\nWe need to close/block russian or pro-russian websites.",
">\n\nOh no!",
">\n\nI just know its going to be a dark day if news reporters/programs are no longer allowed to make up news and are required to tell the entire story about something. \nSadly if you take away the freedom to blabber from a roof top, you also take away freedom of press",
">\n\nWhy not, news websites are a weapon and can be used by either side.",
">\n\nHmmmm. Interesting",
">\n\nThe beginning of the end",
">\n\nSuch a fascist",
">\n\nChurches next?",
">\n\nAlready",
">\n\nIt's very reasonable to find this offputting, but a ton of westerners are showing their chauvinism in this thread. Acting like any/every NATO country hasn't/wouldn't do this in times of war or great conflict is just asinine, governments pretty much everywhere will regulate whose propaganda is legal and whose isn't. Not saying it's always justified, but many westerners are acting like their shit don't stink.",
">\n\nBaltics and lot of EU countries have banned russian propoganda chanels. I agree with this. Russian propoganda is no joke and i would not recomend it for uninitiated.",
">\n\nThey didn’t ban Russian propaganda channels. Law allows government to block any news website they feel necessary. Given the track record of corruption in Ukrainian governance, this can’t be good.\nEdit: grammar",
">\n\nHaving a standard of what qualifies as news while engaged in a propaganda attack from a country several times your size if propferly monitored information through a board and independent laws could be a net positive\nI’m the USA the repeal of the fairness doctorine is often sited as a reason the news ended up with broadcasters telling people not to take a vaccine during a pandemic",
">\n\nWonder if Zelenskky will be Ukraine's ~~Dictator~~ President in 10 years time.",
">\n\nGet your popcorn while redditors try to tell you why this is a good thing and Zelensky can do no wrong",
">\n\nYikes",
">\n\nUkraine was corrupt as all hell before Russia invaded, and continue corrupt and not worthy of trust. Just because they're fighting for their sovereignty against Putin's evil ass doesn't mean they get a blank check to do whatever the fuck they want and pass it off as correct or for some greater good. This is authoritarian bullshit, nothing else.",
">\n\nIt's quite interesting to see the Zelensky fan boys doing their mental gymnastics to defend this policy. Having a government control what you can see is not good at all: it's a tactic thar has been used by most of the worst rulers in history: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.",
">\n\nI can understand why but honestly I think it’s a very slippery slope that most humans aren’t able to handle. Where’s the line at what is ok and what isn’t. A human decides that and humans are fallible.",
">\n\nThey were right to question this move. I hope the good President/Warrior isn't losing his head. This war is insane.",
">\n\nOne the one hand not too good depending on Implementation. One the other hand the legal framework to go against russian propaganda, misinformation and other Media based attenpts against ukraine.",
">\n\nThere is a lot of anti-Ukraine posts on OP’s profile, take this news with a grain of salt",
">\n\nThe UK blocked Russia Today and Sputnik from UK Satellites to stop their propoganda. It's a sensible thing to do in times of conflict.. we did the same to Nazi Germany also.",
">\n\nI think I just lost all respect for this guy",
">\n\nSecond most corrupt country in Europe (after Russia)... What else do you expect.",
">\n\nTough to balance government overreach against foreign interference.",
">\n\nThat's not good.",
">\n\nDon't pull a \"Russia\" bro. Wrong path to be taking.",
">\n\nYou do realize Russian propaganda channels are there and available to zombify people?\nI have spent so much of my personal time to report Youtube Channel24 videos and you have to show in each video where there is an explicit piece where there was a terrorist speech, it is tedious !! Also, noone seem to read an article cause the content is not like that at all",
">\n\nFor some people (especially here on reddit lmao) russian propaganda is any piece of informations you disagree with, and anyone saying it is either a bot or russian troll",
">\n\nRemember when the Russians invaded claiming there were Nazis in Ukraine?\nPepperidge Farms remembers.",
">\n\nPutin is not the good guy, but this doesn't mean Zelensky and the Ukranian government are a bunch of angels.",
">\n\nHe has cracked down on unions too.",
">\n\nDuring the civil war Lincoln has confederate sympathizing reports thrown in jail without trial. \nThis is not new",
">\n\nSomething seriously off with this man,",
">\n\nI’m sure when peace arrives, and one day Zelenskyy is replaced by a nefarious leader this law will also be remove right? Right?",
">\n\nLol watching this happen in slow motion while supposed lovers of freedom and the Ukrainian people just worship this man, who is an actor and he’s just gradually changing his role.",
">\n\nFreedom of speech? Hahaha, this is no better than Russia or China.",
">\n\nWhat a fucking dishonest headline. Shame on this publisher.",
">\n\nThis is a heck of a misleading headline, the law outlines blatant Russian propaganda sites as the issue. This is almost as bad as the reporting of them “banning orthodox religion” no they banned the orthodox Russian church, that church was using their religion as a cover to transport information back to Russia.",
">\n\nBad idea.",
">\n\nRussian propaganda is no joke and Ukraine probably needs the ability to block it. It's a shame this wasn't passed as wartime emergency legislation with an automatic repeal date though.",
">\n\nNothing to see here, just the good guys fighting against evil Russia 😅",
">\n\nAnd down the slippery slope we continue to slide.",
">\n\nHalf the problem with war now is the media giving g the game away ... there should 100% be restrictions on what the media can post during war time",
">\n\nWell, this headline is awful. First of all we already have such thing since 2015 I believe (one of popular examples is \"vk\" website), secondly - it's just EU standards. \nBtw we still don't have \"war censorship\", you can critisize government all you want.",
">\n\nImagine defending media censorship. China must be proud",
">\n\nRussia does exactly the same thing blocking websites that they consider to be spreading misinformation. And this is obviously bad.\nYet, the amount of double standards in this thread with people thinking that \"it's fine when Ukraine does it\" is absurd.\nBefore the war Ukraine was always on the top positions of most corrupt countries in Europe. This law WILL be abused.",
">\n\nRemember when he said he wanted to run his country more like a democracy…yeah, he just wants those dollars from the U.S",
">\n\nYup this is not the right way to do stuff... If you really wanna show that you are cleaning up the corruptness in your country then don't start making laws like this shit.",
">\n\nVery freedom loving and democratic",
">\n\nNothing says countering russian propaganda like censorship and more propaganda 👍",
">\n\nWatch Ukraine turn into a brutal dictatorship lead by the dancing with the stars jokey guy.",
">\n\nIts the same laws that govern the EU.",
">\n\nWell the corruption continues. “I think it’s good when we do it” Is not a good justification.",
">\n\nDictator for life",
">\n\nIt should only be valid as long as the war against Russia.",
">\n\nRussian \"new\" Websites, which actually are just propaganda machineries, should ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE be blocked.",
">\n\nUkraine has its own propaganda too.",
">\n\nName one nation in a conflict that doesn't censor and put out nationalistic/propaganda. Edited to clarify.",
">\n\nExactly man, that is why I'm saying that censoring is not the right call. Once the government censors you from reading international media, you are influenced by your own government and you know and think only what they want you to know and think. Having trust in your own government is ok but trusting it blindly is not. It makes you easily influenced by your own government,a puppet and as you said, every nation in conflict is making propaganda.",
">\n\nNo different than really any other country that has been in a total war. I just hope that's it's a temporary war measure, which I'm not sure it is.",
">\n\nTotally normal behavior",
">\n\nSounds like news sensorship to me..",
">\n\nHope rises. Discontent rises slightly.\nBeware of the poet's suicide.\nP.s. This is a game reference",
">\n\n1000% normal in war times. Many countries have done this before. It's impossible for Ukraine not to do this given how much Russia is investing into disinformation. Literally having speaker cars driving through the streets with propaganda 24/7. Broadcasting fake news into Ukraine through all mediums. If they get to a large group of people in the US imagine the amount of people they can influence when it comes to their neighbors.\nThe only way they can get Ukraine to lose the war is to break the people's will to fight and they're doing this by not only bombing schools, playgrounds, hospitals and powerplants to freeze them to death but also spreading propaganda to make the people second guess their leadership",
">\n\nCountries do this all the time. Even the US.\nStop trying to vilify Ukraine to appease that shit cabbage Putin. Russia invaded them, not the other way around.",
">\n\nI love watching people try to balance not being called out on ignoring Ukraine's pre-existing corruption and keeping the \"Ukraine = unquestionable good guys\" narrative.\nThere's nothing that says war HAS to be \"good guys vs bad guys\".",
">\n\nPeople have every right to complain about this. But remember Ukraine is fighting in the fields for their very existence.",
">\n\nZelensky understands Democracy more than people think. He's most likely changing it now because of the WAR so that not much information gets back to the enemy.. Remember when Ukraine did both big successful offensives they had a Media Blackout.",
">\n\nOnly state-approved propaganda is authorized",
">\n\nPeople are dumbasses in this thread, and have no idea how propaganda, and filtering media works. There's a reason why propaganda is dangerous, and there are reasons why it's blocked.\nNarrow minded AF.",
">\n\nIn war, certain civil liberties are curtailed. It is this way, it’s always been this way, and it will always be this way. War is not a game. It’s not good that this happens, of course, but it’s one of the many reasons war is bad."
] |
>
It’s a standard phenomenon at war time. | [
"Just curious, how did the US regulate media during WWII if at all? Obviously the war department was churning out war news and propaganda, but did they censor/restrict any media from being published?",
">\n\nYes, absolutely. They formed the Office of Censorship and heavily regulated the press, especially radio. But it was almost entirely geared towards preventing information on troop movements and weather from getting out, and coded enemy messages from getting in. They didn't force stations to broadcast propaganda or ban negative stories, and most of the restrictions were followed voluntarily.\nThere was also the Office of War Information which was responsible for producing propaganda and rejected film scripts that were critical or negative regarding the war effort - but they did not restrict the press to my knowledge.",
">\n\nSuper interesting! Thanks for sharing. Yes it seems this was a bit more functional about what comes in and out of the country, not necessarily with what’s published domestically as far as swaying public opinion. Also TIL the catch phrase “loose lips sink ships” came from this agency.\nThe voluntary aspect is somewhat enlightening as to how unified the country was in the war effort. The cynic in me makes me even more curious if there was other censorship at play outside of this agency that helped create that sentiment. I feel like someone would have replied about some landmark Supreme Court case by now though if that were the case.",
">\n\nAmerican's have a curious ability to get in line when there is a clear and present danger to the nation. Someone summed it up with \"You can always count on American's to do the right thing when they have no other option.\"",
">\n\nWinston Churchill famously stated “Americans will always do the right thing, only after they have tried everything else.\"\nIs that the quote you are thinking of?",
">\n\nIt was attributed to him, but tracing things down, it was apparent not said by him and I’ve heard both versions.",
">\n\nLawmakers have touted the bill as an effort to bring Ukraine's media laws closer to European Union standards as the country makes a bid to join the 27-member bloc. They have also argued that it will help counter Russian propaganda as Russia's invasion of Ukraine nears its one-year anniversary.\nBut organizations representing journalists say the law will erode press freedoms in Ukraine. Under the law, Ukraine's media regulator could block websites that are not registered with the government as news organizations, The Kyiv Independent reported on Friday. \nThe law is at odds with freedoms given to the press in other parts of Europe, the European Federation of Journalists said in a statement on Friday, according to the Times. \nEdit: because some users argued (with justification) that my post kept specific details hidden, I added the rest of the news post. I also checked the Kyiv Independent and it checks out.",
">\n\nWhile this is true, if I'm not mistaken some EU members have still spoken out against the bill - mainly because the new regulatory body will be led/run by the federal government, whereas in the EU they're generally a separate entity from the government run by civilians\nStill a step in the right direction, but I can see where people worry",
">\n\nHow is censorship a right step in any direction?",
">\n\nIt's indeed a double edged sword. On the one hand self-proclaimed news networks might spread their political agenda or incite illegal behaviour, on the other hand it's a real shortcut to control the media. This needs to be handled very carefully and probably by a body that's not interwoven with the government.",
">\n\nThere are few good options in war, especially a total war where the very survival of a country and ethnolinguistic group is at risk. Zelenskyy is probably going a bit far, but it’s hard to really blame him.",
">\n\nDepends on what the censorship is… trying to dispel discontentment with current ruling party or suppressing enemy state misinformation.",
">\n\nI think it's safe to infer the reasoning is to filter propaganda. I don't think there is much discontent with the current ruling party. Zelensky\"s approval ratings have been through the roof. Although, it's an easy power to abuse in the wrong hands.",
">\n\nI mean, can you think of a single instance in history where censorship was a net societal benefit, rolled back when no longer necessary, and not abused over the long-term? Nothing comes to mind.\nJournalists surely also know this to be the case, hence their outspoken opposition to the measure.",
">\n\nAbraham Lincoln suspending habeas corpus in the civil war is probably the best example for Americans in here. Would it be tolerated during peacetime? hell no. Would it be tolerated when the entire country is at an inflection point like the Ukraine is in 2023 and the US in 1861. Yes.\nedit: left out Abe's last name",
">\n\nWhat's it like to be on a first-name basis with Abraham Lincoln?",
">\n\nIt does make sense to block Russian \"news\" channels but its easily open to abuse",
">\n\nThis. Sounds like the Sedition Act of 1917. Easy to pass during wartime and makes sense, but probably wouldn’t get passed during peacetime. \nIt also doesn’t help that Ukraine was like #31 on the world’s corruption index prior to the war.",
">\n\nI vaguely recall reading that prior to the war Ukraine was the second most corrupt country in Europe, behind Russia.",
">\n\nThat's pretty much why Zelensky won the elections, he ran on an anti-corruption platform and has actually done a lot to combat it",
">\n\nLike what?",
">\n\nno more oligarchs",
">\n\nYou really think he ended the oligarchy? And it will only get 100x worse after the war when western businessmen come in to “fix” the country.",
">\n\nLmao this. We should all remember that he was also named in the Panama papers for holding 20+ million overseas",
">\n\nWhats so weird about successful actor having 20million to their name?",
">\n\nThey’ve been blocking the BBC on and off for years.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest lessons the world will learn from this conflict is that while Ukraine is/are the good guys… they are far, far behind a system that is akin to the western world.\nmy father’s grandfather was from Ukraine.\nAs he likes to say, Ukraine had 30 years to get their shit together so that when this day (02/24/22, Russia’s invasion which was always an inevitability if you know Ukraine, Ukraine’s history and geopolitics) arrived they’d be more than just militarily prepared.\nThey would be a part of NATO.. but Ukraine wanted to dip its toes in both democracy and wide-scale corruption.",
">\n\nFrom what I understand, the oligarchs and who grabbed up all the candy when the USSR piñata ruptured have been a big part of the problem. They have lost a lot of power and wealth, and some experts believe that this could create a political space for serious reform. I sure hope so!",
">\n\nExactly not to mention many oligarchs actually own news outlets and even television stations. I get what they’re trying to do given the war, but they have to be careful with the execution of it because it’s a step away from authoritarian control over news and media. News and media should be free but within limits too. Ex. Carlson tucker on Fox News in the US isn’t exactly unbiased. If there was a Ukrainian counterpart, they’d try to shut it down.",
">\n\nA nation in war time does not have the luxury of entertaining 100% freedom of information, especially considering the constant misinformation campaigns waged by Russia on top of its land war.",
">\n\nShutting on and off news websites? Banning political parties? BAWWW TYRANNY.\n\nPeople should not be naive, Ukraine is at war, the survival of their nation is at stake.",
">\n\nPrecisely, and psyops against Ukraine are extremely active.\nI hope they can reach Western values one day, but this is war against a much bigger Country that does not play fair. \nLet's let Ukraine win this war first and give them some time to rebuild before their culture becomes more Western.",
">\n\nHere in Adelaide, Australia, we did that. In the days before websites so he wasn't blocked, but a certain editor knew he wasn't welcome and had to leave town. He was an awful liar and very divisive. Inherited a newspaper from his dad called 'The News'.\nAfter he left town he started a company named after the Adelaide paper, NewsCorp. Rupert Murdoch was the name he went by (though his first name is really Keith, not Rupert). Wonder whatever happened to him?",
">\n\nHe got mad and decided to ruin the world.",
">\n\n\"I think it's good when we do it\" is a dangerous justification",
">\n\nYes, it is very similar to how the freedom of press declined in Russia. All medias were required to be registered by some governmental department in order to \"control the flow of information from abroad\". In no time it became the instrument of banning unwanted media.\nThough I admit banning Russian state media is for the better. Could they be banned in Russia itself, too?",
">\n\nThe thing is who defines that the media is pro-Russian. While it stays for the Ukrainian government to define, Ukrainian freedom of speech basically is being destroyed.",
">\n\nNot really enough information in the article to make an informed opinion on this.\n \nDecision was made by parliament, Zelenskyy's role in this is to sign the law, much like other world leaders don't necessarily agree with everything they have to sign.\nThe article mentions this is to allow them to ban websites not listed as media, which to me means the ability to ban any website if it isn't a registered media website. So, specifically to not allow them to block news websites so long as they are registered.\nAlso mentions this was to try and bring them more in line with EU countries, while at the same time saying it does the opposite.\n \nDo we have a link to the actual text of the new law?",
">\n\nSlippery slope",
">\n\nMost of the west have already blocked RT for their disinformation.",
">\n\nPrivate companies blocking is one thing, but governments is very different.\nA lot of laws created with \"good intentions\" are very often used for bad things, especially in countries with long history of corruption like Ukraine.",
">\n\nFrance is blocking RT",
">\n\nThese things happen during war, in every country.\nThe real test is seeing what laws will be repealed once this is all over imo.",
">\n\n\nThe real test is seeing what laws will be repealed once this is all over\n\nNone of them will be. Governments never voluntarily surrender any measure of control over the people. That's why the US is still officially in a state of national emergency 22 years after 9/11: so that the government elites can keep using their \"temporary\" emergency powers.",
">\n\nThe exact opposite has been happening in a lot of cases. The war has been used as an excuse to carry out a lot of deregulation and liberalization",
">\n\nLike when they banned left wing opposition parties?",
">\n\nArticle says websites not registered as media could be blocked. Kind of the opposite of what the headline says...",
">\n\nGovernments never relinquish power once they have it. Look at how the patriot act went from protecting our country to taking our rights. This is not a slippery slope. This is what corruption looks like. I really want Ukraine to succeed but decisions like this gives me trepidation.",
">\n\nRussia China bans websites \"fascists, ugly despots, violating human rights\" \nsomeone else does it \"understandable, well within their rights, good step\"\nAn accurate portrayal of exceptionalism",
">\n\nPeople have a hard time applying the same logic to things they like.",
">\n\nCool, there is certainly zero propaganda coming out Ukraine, for sure.",
">\n\nHa!",
">\n\nThat sounds like a healthy and not at all a government propaganda machine.",
">\n\nIt’s their country, let ‘em do as they choose. I can understand it during wartime, but in peacetime it sounds like one of those slippery slopes….",
">\n\nConsidering that before the war started everyone was talking about how corrupt the Ukraine government was I'd expect this to be abused for the duration of the war and after.",
">\n\nWestern media can be just as bad at spouting Russian propaganda. It seems like the editors have no ability to disseminate when I see headlines on APNews/Reuters weekly about how \"Putin is ready to negotiate but Ukraine refuses\".",
">\n\nI mean, this Business Insider article is a pretty fantastic case in point:\nare there reasonable concerns about this law? Yup.\nAre there extremely good reasons to pass it regardless, in a state of war against an adversary which thrives off propaganda? Also yes.\nWill Business Insider try and \"both sides\" this to get the \"BWUH 1984\" crowd arguing about their article? Final yes.",
">\n\nWell, Ukraine has never been the democratic heaven that the west is portraying it as in order to feed the propaganda. It's the most corrupt country in Europe and political opposition prior to the invasion was also suppressed.\nOne of Elensky's opposition leaders was in house arrest, although I can't remember his name. I think he escaped after the war started.",
">\n\nFreedom Fighter bans Dissent",
">\n\nThis is never good",
">\n\nYou either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.\n… Or maybe it’s to block Russian propaganda; idk",
">\n\nGovernment controlled media… if anyone thinks this is a good idea then you’re wrong",
">\n\nWhen has censorship ever been on the right side of history?",
">\n\nLincoln infamously censored free speech and the press during the American civil war, and often arrested (without due process!) anyone publishing media opposing the draft or expressing sympathy for the south",
">\n\n\"don't listen to that propaganda, listen to this propaganda\"",
">\n\nAnd so it begins.",
">\n\nI wonder how many pro-working class news outlets will suddenly be removed because they’re critical of Ukraine’s bourgeois government.",
">\n\nThe west is gonna act shocked when this war is over and it turns out Ukraine is still a corrupt place, but saying that makes me pro Russian or some shit",
">\n\nWhat irks me is them saying that being in the EU will supposedly make things better…",
">\n\nAs a country at war, censorship is not surprising. What will be telling is how they behave once the war is over.",
">\n\nSomething a totally not fascist would do, right?",
">\n\nwhen news reporting is killing your soldiers",
">\n\nHe already banned opposing political parties. What’s next?",
">\n\nThey also banned Russian and Rusyn languages schools. Its an ethnostate, simple as.",
">\n\nWar tends to be bad for freedom of speech. The Ukrainian people have a right to hear what pro-Russian media is saying.",
">\n\nAnd yet people claim that this guy is the savior of democracy? Aahahahahah, m'kay.",
">\n\nHonestly this isn't news. Countries are well known for curtailing news reporting during wartime. The US and UK did it during WW2. You don't want news media reporting the location of your troops or movements. \nThe test to democracy isn't what's passed during wartime, it's what's rescinded when war is over. When Ukraine eventually wins, the question will be how well do they transition to functioning, minimally corrupt transparent democracy. Will Zelensky and his successors freely give up power? Will the people elect fascist white nationalists who contributed to the war effort? The future remains to be seen. Well intentions can easily be lead astray.",
">\n\n“Could” is probably doing a lot of work here.",
">\n\nThe problem with that is that it shouldn’t. Laws need to be scoped heavily, or they will be rife with abuse.",
">\n\nSo censorship is suddenly ok because someone that’s not Russia did it.",
">\n\nThe headline sounds terrible. However reading helps add sense to it. \nBut I can't help to wonder whether blocking news websites due to \"weaponized media\" is a good thing or bad thing. I feel there's a gray line here that could be getting crossed and one has to question \"Is this propaganda that's being blocked, or is this our country censoring media brainwashing us in an attempt to strengthen their resolve?\" \nI'm all for Ukraine in this war, but in terms of a country censoring media, it's well.... a sticky subject. What action is the correct action when your enemies are using it as a weapon to confuse the public opinion?",
">\n\nI have no problem with this, RT is blocked in my country and Europe",
">\n\nafaik this is just ukraine setting up a media regulator along EU directives - all countries must have these mechanisms.",
">\n\nEU directives aren’t regulated by the government. Ukraine’s will be",
">\n\nDuring war time, I think that's fine. It's important to minimize Russian propaganda and to make sure no military information gets leaked.",
">\n\nIf the independent regulator can't be trusted during war time, why can it be trusted during peace time?",
">\n\nTo be very clear, this is many steps too far for peacetime and this bill isn't limited to wartime.\nI'm not Ukrainian and not an expert on the bill by any means but placing this under the same umbrella as the ~~federal~~ national government is dangerous and exposes the country to big problems down the road.\nI could defend it if the bill explicitly was for wartime. And many bills have expiration dates. But this is not good.",
">\n\nBut I thought he was about democracy?",
">\n\nGood if it's for the russian news websites only!\nNow, how about Ukraine's president fix that law forbidding romanian language to be taught to the romanian minority in Ukraine?\nAr we good neighbors respecting each other or are we not?",
">\n\nFinally someone who understands what is going on here.",
">\n\nGenius",
">\n\nAuto correct typo in my first post! Fixed.\nNot at all supporting suppression of dissent, but there has to be some way to block intentionally slander and misinformation, the hawking of all out lies through garbage like Alex Jones from bending the public discourse, and causing serious social harm. \nParading conspiracy theories or promoting propaganda created by the FSB to destabilize democracy isn't journalism, and isn't news. Legit journalism runs on facts and as such self corrects as better information comes to light. Propaganda either points to a new distraction or digs deeper into a lie, as do its adherents.",
">\n\nNo idea what people are complaining about. Ukraine had pro-Russian politicians in the parliament, russian fake news and pro-russian KGB \"church\" freely acting in Ukraine for years right before the invasion. The real question is why the didn't shut down them long before.",
">\n\nThe Smith act of 1940 comes to mind.\nUkraine is under threat of genocide. Let's see what happens after they win.",
">\n\nWe need to close/block russian or pro-russian websites.",
">\n\nOh no!",
">\n\nI just know its going to be a dark day if news reporters/programs are no longer allowed to make up news and are required to tell the entire story about something. \nSadly if you take away the freedom to blabber from a roof top, you also take away freedom of press",
">\n\nWhy not, news websites are a weapon and can be used by either side.",
">\n\nHmmmm. Interesting",
">\n\nThe beginning of the end",
">\n\nSuch a fascist",
">\n\nChurches next?",
">\n\nAlready",
">\n\nIt's very reasonable to find this offputting, but a ton of westerners are showing their chauvinism in this thread. Acting like any/every NATO country hasn't/wouldn't do this in times of war or great conflict is just asinine, governments pretty much everywhere will regulate whose propaganda is legal and whose isn't. Not saying it's always justified, but many westerners are acting like their shit don't stink.",
">\n\nBaltics and lot of EU countries have banned russian propoganda chanels. I agree with this. Russian propoganda is no joke and i would not recomend it for uninitiated.",
">\n\nThey didn’t ban Russian propaganda channels. Law allows government to block any news website they feel necessary. Given the track record of corruption in Ukrainian governance, this can’t be good.\nEdit: grammar",
">\n\nHaving a standard of what qualifies as news while engaged in a propaganda attack from a country several times your size if propferly monitored information through a board and independent laws could be a net positive\nI’m the USA the repeal of the fairness doctorine is often sited as a reason the news ended up with broadcasters telling people not to take a vaccine during a pandemic",
">\n\nWonder if Zelenskky will be Ukraine's ~~Dictator~~ President in 10 years time.",
">\n\nGet your popcorn while redditors try to tell you why this is a good thing and Zelensky can do no wrong",
">\n\nYikes",
">\n\nUkraine was corrupt as all hell before Russia invaded, and continue corrupt and not worthy of trust. Just because they're fighting for their sovereignty against Putin's evil ass doesn't mean they get a blank check to do whatever the fuck they want and pass it off as correct or for some greater good. This is authoritarian bullshit, nothing else.",
">\n\nIt's quite interesting to see the Zelensky fan boys doing their mental gymnastics to defend this policy. Having a government control what you can see is not good at all: it's a tactic thar has been used by most of the worst rulers in history: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.",
">\n\nI can understand why but honestly I think it’s a very slippery slope that most humans aren’t able to handle. Where’s the line at what is ok and what isn’t. A human decides that and humans are fallible.",
">\n\nThey were right to question this move. I hope the good President/Warrior isn't losing his head. This war is insane.",
">\n\nOne the one hand not too good depending on Implementation. One the other hand the legal framework to go against russian propaganda, misinformation and other Media based attenpts against ukraine.",
">\n\nThere is a lot of anti-Ukraine posts on OP’s profile, take this news with a grain of salt",
">\n\nThe UK blocked Russia Today and Sputnik from UK Satellites to stop their propoganda. It's a sensible thing to do in times of conflict.. we did the same to Nazi Germany also.",
">\n\nI think I just lost all respect for this guy",
">\n\nSecond most corrupt country in Europe (after Russia)... What else do you expect.",
">\n\nTough to balance government overreach against foreign interference.",
">\n\nThat's not good.",
">\n\nDon't pull a \"Russia\" bro. Wrong path to be taking.",
">\n\nYou do realize Russian propaganda channels are there and available to zombify people?\nI have spent so much of my personal time to report Youtube Channel24 videos and you have to show in each video where there is an explicit piece where there was a terrorist speech, it is tedious !! Also, noone seem to read an article cause the content is not like that at all",
">\n\nFor some people (especially here on reddit lmao) russian propaganda is any piece of informations you disagree with, and anyone saying it is either a bot or russian troll",
">\n\nRemember when the Russians invaded claiming there were Nazis in Ukraine?\nPepperidge Farms remembers.",
">\n\nPutin is not the good guy, but this doesn't mean Zelensky and the Ukranian government are a bunch of angels.",
">\n\nHe has cracked down on unions too.",
">\n\nDuring the civil war Lincoln has confederate sympathizing reports thrown in jail without trial. \nThis is not new",
">\n\nSomething seriously off with this man,",
">\n\nI’m sure when peace arrives, and one day Zelenskyy is replaced by a nefarious leader this law will also be remove right? Right?",
">\n\nLol watching this happen in slow motion while supposed lovers of freedom and the Ukrainian people just worship this man, who is an actor and he’s just gradually changing his role.",
">\n\nFreedom of speech? Hahaha, this is no better than Russia or China.",
">\n\nWhat a fucking dishonest headline. Shame on this publisher.",
">\n\nThis is a heck of a misleading headline, the law outlines blatant Russian propaganda sites as the issue. This is almost as bad as the reporting of them “banning orthodox religion” no they banned the orthodox Russian church, that church was using their religion as a cover to transport information back to Russia.",
">\n\nBad idea.",
">\n\nRussian propaganda is no joke and Ukraine probably needs the ability to block it. It's a shame this wasn't passed as wartime emergency legislation with an automatic repeal date though.",
">\n\nNothing to see here, just the good guys fighting against evil Russia 😅",
">\n\nAnd down the slippery slope we continue to slide.",
">\n\nHalf the problem with war now is the media giving g the game away ... there should 100% be restrictions on what the media can post during war time",
">\n\nWell, this headline is awful. First of all we already have such thing since 2015 I believe (one of popular examples is \"vk\" website), secondly - it's just EU standards. \nBtw we still don't have \"war censorship\", you can critisize government all you want.",
">\n\nImagine defending media censorship. China must be proud",
">\n\nRussia does exactly the same thing blocking websites that they consider to be spreading misinformation. And this is obviously bad.\nYet, the amount of double standards in this thread with people thinking that \"it's fine when Ukraine does it\" is absurd.\nBefore the war Ukraine was always on the top positions of most corrupt countries in Europe. This law WILL be abused.",
">\n\nRemember when he said he wanted to run his country more like a democracy…yeah, he just wants those dollars from the U.S",
">\n\nYup this is not the right way to do stuff... If you really wanna show that you are cleaning up the corruptness in your country then don't start making laws like this shit.",
">\n\nVery freedom loving and democratic",
">\n\nNothing says countering russian propaganda like censorship and more propaganda 👍",
">\n\nWatch Ukraine turn into a brutal dictatorship lead by the dancing with the stars jokey guy.",
">\n\nIts the same laws that govern the EU.",
">\n\nWell the corruption continues. “I think it’s good when we do it” Is not a good justification.",
">\n\nDictator for life",
">\n\nIt should only be valid as long as the war against Russia.",
">\n\nRussian \"new\" Websites, which actually are just propaganda machineries, should ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE be blocked.",
">\n\nUkraine has its own propaganda too.",
">\n\nName one nation in a conflict that doesn't censor and put out nationalistic/propaganda. Edited to clarify.",
">\n\nExactly man, that is why I'm saying that censoring is not the right call. Once the government censors you from reading international media, you are influenced by your own government and you know and think only what they want you to know and think. Having trust in your own government is ok but trusting it blindly is not. It makes you easily influenced by your own government,a puppet and as you said, every nation in conflict is making propaganda.",
">\n\nNo different than really any other country that has been in a total war. I just hope that's it's a temporary war measure, which I'm not sure it is.",
">\n\nTotally normal behavior",
">\n\nSounds like news sensorship to me..",
">\n\nHope rises. Discontent rises slightly.\nBeware of the poet's suicide.\nP.s. This is a game reference",
">\n\n1000% normal in war times. Many countries have done this before. It's impossible for Ukraine not to do this given how much Russia is investing into disinformation. Literally having speaker cars driving through the streets with propaganda 24/7. Broadcasting fake news into Ukraine through all mediums. If they get to a large group of people in the US imagine the amount of people they can influence when it comes to their neighbors.\nThe only way they can get Ukraine to lose the war is to break the people's will to fight and they're doing this by not only bombing schools, playgrounds, hospitals and powerplants to freeze them to death but also spreading propaganda to make the people second guess their leadership",
">\n\nCountries do this all the time. Even the US.\nStop trying to vilify Ukraine to appease that shit cabbage Putin. Russia invaded them, not the other way around.",
">\n\nI love watching people try to balance not being called out on ignoring Ukraine's pre-existing corruption and keeping the \"Ukraine = unquestionable good guys\" narrative.\nThere's nothing that says war HAS to be \"good guys vs bad guys\".",
">\n\nPeople have every right to complain about this. But remember Ukraine is fighting in the fields for their very existence.",
">\n\nZelensky understands Democracy more than people think. He's most likely changing it now because of the WAR so that not much information gets back to the enemy.. Remember when Ukraine did both big successful offensives they had a Media Blackout.",
">\n\nOnly state-approved propaganda is authorized",
">\n\nPeople are dumbasses in this thread, and have no idea how propaganda, and filtering media works. There's a reason why propaganda is dangerous, and there are reasons why it's blocked.\nNarrow minded AF.",
">\n\nIn war, certain civil liberties are curtailed. It is this way, it’s always been this way, and it will always be this way. War is not a game. It’s not good that this happens, of course, but it’s one of the many reasons war is bad.",
">\n\nThis definitely isn't suspicious at all"
] |
>
Of course he did | [
"Just curious, how did the US regulate media during WWII if at all? Obviously the war department was churning out war news and propaganda, but did they censor/restrict any media from being published?",
">\n\nYes, absolutely. They formed the Office of Censorship and heavily regulated the press, especially radio. But it was almost entirely geared towards preventing information on troop movements and weather from getting out, and coded enemy messages from getting in. They didn't force stations to broadcast propaganda or ban negative stories, and most of the restrictions were followed voluntarily.\nThere was also the Office of War Information which was responsible for producing propaganda and rejected film scripts that were critical or negative regarding the war effort - but they did not restrict the press to my knowledge.",
">\n\nSuper interesting! Thanks for sharing. Yes it seems this was a bit more functional about what comes in and out of the country, not necessarily with what’s published domestically as far as swaying public opinion. Also TIL the catch phrase “loose lips sink ships” came from this agency.\nThe voluntary aspect is somewhat enlightening as to how unified the country was in the war effort. The cynic in me makes me even more curious if there was other censorship at play outside of this agency that helped create that sentiment. I feel like someone would have replied about some landmark Supreme Court case by now though if that were the case.",
">\n\nAmerican's have a curious ability to get in line when there is a clear and present danger to the nation. Someone summed it up with \"You can always count on American's to do the right thing when they have no other option.\"",
">\n\nWinston Churchill famously stated “Americans will always do the right thing, only after they have tried everything else.\"\nIs that the quote you are thinking of?",
">\n\nIt was attributed to him, but tracing things down, it was apparent not said by him and I’ve heard both versions.",
">\n\nLawmakers have touted the bill as an effort to bring Ukraine's media laws closer to European Union standards as the country makes a bid to join the 27-member bloc. They have also argued that it will help counter Russian propaganda as Russia's invasion of Ukraine nears its one-year anniversary.\nBut organizations representing journalists say the law will erode press freedoms in Ukraine. Under the law, Ukraine's media regulator could block websites that are not registered with the government as news organizations, The Kyiv Independent reported on Friday. \nThe law is at odds with freedoms given to the press in other parts of Europe, the European Federation of Journalists said in a statement on Friday, according to the Times. \nEdit: because some users argued (with justification) that my post kept specific details hidden, I added the rest of the news post. I also checked the Kyiv Independent and it checks out.",
">\n\nWhile this is true, if I'm not mistaken some EU members have still spoken out against the bill - mainly because the new regulatory body will be led/run by the federal government, whereas in the EU they're generally a separate entity from the government run by civilians\nStill a step in the right direction, but I can see where people worry",
">\n\nHow is censorship a right step in any direction?",
">\n\nIt's indeed a double edged sword. On the one hand self-proclaimed news networks might spread their political agenda or incite illegal behaviour, on the other hand it's a real shortcut to control the media. This needs to be handled very carefully and probably by a body that's not interwoven with the government.",
">\n\nThere are few good options in war, especially a total war where the very survival of a country and ethnolinguistic group is at risk. Zelenskyy is probably going a bit far, but it’s hard to really blame him.",
">\n\nDepends on what the censorship is… trying to dispel discontentment with current ruling party or suppressing enemy state misinformation.",
">\n\nI think it's safe to infer the reasoning is to filter propaganda. I don't think there is much discontent with the current ruling party. Zelensky\"s approval ratings have been through the roof. Although, it's an easy power to abuse in the wrong hands.",
">\n\nI mean, can you think of a single instance in history where censorship was a net societal benefit, rolled back when no longer necessary, and not abused over the long-term? Nothing comes to mind.\nJournalists surely also know this to be the case, hence their outspoken opposition to the measure.",
">\n\nAbraham Lincoln suspending habeas corpus in the civil war is probably the best example for Americans in here. Would it be tolerated during peacetime? hell no. Would it be tolerated when the entire country is at an inflection point like the Ukraine is in 2023 and the US in 1861. Yes.\nedit: left out Abe's last name",
">\n\nWhat's it like to be on a first-name basis with Abraham Lincoln?",
">\n\nIt does make sense to block Russian \"news\" channels but its easily open to abuse",
">\n\nThis. Sounds like the Sedition Act of 1917. Easy to pass during wartime and makes sense, but probably wouldn’t get passed during peacetime. \nIt also doesn’t help that Ukraine was like #31 on the world’s corruption index prior to the war.",
">\n\nI vaguely recall reading that prior to the war Ukraine was the second most corrupt country in Europe, behind Russia.",
">\n\nThat's pretty much why Zelensky won the elections, he ran on an anti-corruption platform and has actually done a lot to combat it",
">\n\nLike what?",
">\n\nno more oligarchs",
">\n\nYou really think he ended the oligarchy? And it will only get 100x worse after the war when western businessmen come in to “fix” the country.",
">\n\nLmao this. We should all remember that he was also named in the Panama papers for holding 20+ million overseas",
">\n\nWhats so weird about successful actor having 20million to their name?",
">\n\nThey’ve been blocking the BBC on and off for years.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest lessons the world will learn from this conflict is that while Ukraine is/are the good guys… they are far, far behind a system that is akin to the western world.\nmy father’s grandfather was from Ukraine.\nAs he likes to say, Ukraine had 30 years to get their shit together so that when this day (02/24/22, Russia’s invasion which was always an inevitability if you know Ukraine, Ukraine’s history and geopolitics) arrived they’d be more than just militarily prepared.\nThey would be a part of NATO.. but Ukraine wanted to dip its toes in both democracy and wide-scale corruption.",
">\n\nFrom what I understand, the oligarchs and who grabbed up all the candy when the USSR piñata ruptured have been a big part of the problem. They have lost a lot of power and wealth, and some experts believe that this could create a political space for serious reform. I sure hope so!",
">\n\nExactly not to mention many oligarchs actually own news outlets and even television stations. I get what they’re trying to do given the war, but they have to be careful with the execution of it because it’s a step away from authoritarian control over news and media. News and media should be free but within limits too. Ex. Carlson tucker on Fox News in the US isn’t exactly unbiased. If there was a Ukrainian counterpart, they’d try to shut it down.",
">\n\nA nation in war time does not have the luxury of entertaining 100% freedom of information, especially considering the constant misinformation campaigns waged by Russia on top of its land war.",
">\n\nShutting on and off news websites? Banning political parties? BAWWW TYRANNY.\n\nPeople should not be naive, Ukraine is at war, the survival of their nation is at stake.",
">\n\nPrecisely, and psyops against Ukraine are extremely active.\nI hope they can reach Western values one day, but this is war against a much bigger Country that does not play fair. \nLet's let Ukraine win this war first and give them some time to rebuild before their culture becomes more Western.",
">\n\nHere in Adelaide, Australia, we did that. In the days before websites so he wasn't blocked, but a certain editor knew he wasn't welcome and had to leave town. He was an awful liar and very divisive. Inherited a newspaper from his dad called 'The News'.\nAfter he left town he started a company named after the Adelaide paper, NewsCorp. Rupert Murdoch was the name he went by (though his first name is really Keith, not Rupert). Wonder whatever happened to him?",
">\n\nHe got mad and decided to ruin the world.",
">\n\n\"I think it's good when we do it\" is a dangerous justification",
">\n\nYes, it is very similar to how the freedom of press declined in Russia. All medias were required to be registered by some governmental department in order to \"control the flow of information from abroad\". In no time it became the instrument of banning unwanted media.\nThough I admit banning Russian state media is for the better. Could they be banned in Russia itself, too?",
">\n\nThe thing is who defines that the media is pro-Russian. While it stays for the Ukrainian government to define, Ukrainian freedom of speech basically is being destroyed.",
">\n\nNot really enough information in the article to make an informed opinion on this.\n \nDecision was made by parliament, Zelenskyy's role in this is to sign the law, much like other world leaders don't necessarily agree with everything they have to sign.\nThe article mentions this is to allow them to ban websites not listed as media, which to me means the ability to ban any website if it isn't a registered media website. So, specifically to not allow them to block news websites so long as they are registered.\nAlso mentions this was to try and bring them more in line with EU countries, while at the same time saying it does the opposite.\n \nDo we have a link to the actual text of the new law?",
">\n\nSlippery slope",
">\n\nMost of the west have already blocked RT for their disinformation.",
">\n\nPrivate companies blocking is one thing, but governments is very different.\nA lot of laws created with \"good intentions\" are very often used for bad things, especially in countries with long history of corruption like Ukraine.",
">\n\nFrance is blocking RT",
">\n\nThese things happen during war, in every country.\nThe real test is seeing what laws will be repealed once this is all over imo.",
">\n\n\nThe real test is seeing what laws will be repealed once this is all over\n\nNone of them will be. Governments never voluntarily surrender any measure of control over the people. That's why the US is still officially in a state of national emergency 22 years after 9/11: so that the government elites can keep using their \"temporary\" emergency powers.",
">\n\nThe exact opposite has been happening in a lot of cases. The war has been used as an excuse to carry out a lot of deregulation and liberalization",
">\n\nLike when they banned left wing opposition parties?",
">\n\nArticle says websites not registered as media could be blocked. Kind of the opposite of what the headline says...",
">\n\nGovernments never relinquish power once they have it. Look at how the patriot act went from protecting our country to taking our rights. This is not a slippery slope. This is what corruption looks like. I really want Ukraine to succeed but decisions like this gives me trepidation.",
">\n\nRussia China bans websites \"fascists, ugly despots, violating human rights\" \nsomeone else does it \"understandable, well within their rights, good step\"\nAn accurate portrayal of exceptionalism",
">\n\nPeople have a hard time applying the same logic to things they like.",
">\n\nCool, there is certainly zero propaganda coming out Ukraine, for sure.",
">\n\nHa!",
">\n\nThat sounds like a healthy and not at all a government propaganda machine.",
">\n\nIt’s their country, let ‘em do as they choose. I can understand it during wartime, but in peacetime it sounds like one of those slippery slopes….",
">\n\nConsidering that before the war started everyone was talking about how corrupt the Ukraine government was I'd expect this to be abused for the duration of the war and after.",
">\n\nWestern media can be just as bad at spouting Russian propaganda. It seems like the editors have no ability to disseminate when I see headlines on APNews/Reuters weekly about how \"Putin is ready to negotiate but Ukraine refuses\".",
">\n\nI mean, this Business Insider article is a pretty fantastic case in point:\nare there reasonable concerns about this law? Yup.\nAre there extremely good reasons to pass it regardless, in a state of war against an adversary which thrives off propaganda? Also yes.\nWill Business Insider try and \"both sides\" this to get the \"BWUH 1984\" crowd arguing about their article? Final yes.",
">\n\nWell, Ukraine has never been the democratic heaven that the west is portraying it as in order to feed the propaganda. It's the most corrupt country in Europe and political opposition prior to the invasion was also suppressed.\nOne of Elensky's opposition leaders was in house arrest, although I can't remember his name. I think he escaped after the war started.",
">\n\nFreedom Fighter bans Dissent",
">\n\nThis is never good",
">\n\nYou either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.\n… Or maybe it’s to block Russian propaganda; idk",
">\n\nGovernment controlled media… if anyone thinks this is a good idea then you’re wrong",
">\n\nWhen has censorship ever been on the right side of history?",
">\n\nLincoln infamously censored free speech and the press during the American civil war, and often arrested (without due process!) anyone publishing media opposing the draft or expressing sympathy for the south",
">\n\n\"don't listen to that propaganda, listen to this propaganda\"",
">\n\nAnd so it begins.",
">\n\nI wonder how many pro-working class news outlets will suddenly be removed because they’re critical of Ukraine’s bourgeois government.",
">\n\nThe west is gonna act shocked when this war is over and it turns out Ukraine is still a corrupt place, but saying that makes me pro Russian or some shit",
">\n\nWhat irks me is them saying that being in the EU will supposedly make things better…",
">\n\nAs a country at war, censorship is not surprising. What will be telling is how they behave once the war is over.",
">\n\nSomething a totally not fascist would do, right?",
">\n\nwhen news reporting is killing your soldiers",
">\n\nHe already banned opposing political parties. What’s next?",
">\n\nThey also banned Russian and Rusyn languages schools. Its an ethnostate, simple as.",
">\n\nWar tends to be bad for freedom of speech. The Ukrainian people have a right to hear what pro-Russian media is saying.",
">\n\nAnd yet people claim that this guy is the savior of democracy? Aahahahahah, m'kay.",
">\n\nHonestly this isn't news. Countries are well known for curtailing news reporting during wartime. The US and UK did it during WW2. You don't want news media reporting the location of your troops or movements. \nThe test to democracy isn't what's passed during wartime, it's what's rescinded when war is over. When Ukraine eventually wins, the question will be how well do they transition to functioning, minimally corrupt transparent democracy. Will Zelensky and his successors freely give up power? Will the people elect fascist white nationalists who contributed to the war effort? The future remains to be seen. Well intentions can easily be lead astray.",
">\n\n“Could” is probably doing a lot of work here.",
">\n\nThe problem with that is that it shouldn’t. Laws need to be scoped heavily, or they will be rife with abuse.",
">\n\nSo censorship is suddenly ok because someone that’s not Russia did it.",
">\n\nThe headline sounds terrible. However reading helps add sense to it. \nBut I can't help to wonder whether blocking news websites due to \"weaponized media\" is a good thing or bad thing. I feel there's a gray line here that could be getting crossed and one has to question \"Is this propaganda that's being blocked, or is this our country censoring media brainwashing us in an attempt to strengthen their resolve?\" \nI'm all for Ukraine in this war, but in terms of a country censoring media, it's well.... a sticky subject. What action is the correct action when your enemies are using it as a weapon to confuse the public opinion?",
">\n\nI have no problem with this, RT is blocked in my country and Europe",
">\n\nafaik this is just ukraine setting up a media regulator along EU directives - all countries must have these mechanisms.",
">\n\nEU directives aren’t regulated by the government. Ukraine’s will be",
">\n\nDuring war time, I think that's fine. It's important to minimize Russian propaganda and to make sure no military information gets leaked.",
">\n\nIf the independent regulator can't be trusted during war time, why can it be trusted during peace time?",
">\n\nTo be very clear, this is many steps too far for peacetime and this bill isn't limited to wartime.\nI'm not Ukrainian and not an expert on the bill by any means but placing this under the same umbrella as the ~~federal~~ national government is dangerous and exposes the country to big problems down the road.\nI could defend it if the bill explicitly was for wartime. And many bills have expiration dates. But this is not good.",
">\n\nBut I thought he was about democracy?",
">\n\nGood if it's for the russian news websites only!\nNow, how about Ukraine's president fix that law forbidding romanian language to be taught to the romanian minority in Ukraine?\nAr we good neighbors respecting each other or are we not?",
">\n\nFinally someone who understands what is going on here.",
">\n\nGenius",
">\n\nAuto correct typo in my first post! Fixed.\nNot at all supporting suppression of dissent, but there has to be some way to block intentionally slander and misinformation, the hawking of all out lies through garbage like Alex Jones from bending the public discourse, and causing serious social harm. \nParading conspiracy theories or promoting propaganda created by the FSB to destabilize democracy isn't journalism, and isn't news. Legit journalism runs on facts and as such self corrects as better information comes to light. Propaganda either points to a new distraction or digs deeper into a lie, as do its adherents.",
">\n\nNo idea what people are complaining about. Ukraine had pro-Russian politicians in the parliament, russian fake news and pro-russian KGB \"church\" freely acting in Ukraine for years right before the invasion. The real question is why the didn't shut down them long before.",
">\n\nThe Smith act of 1940 comes to mind.\nUkraine is under threat of genocide. Let's see what happens after they win.",
">\n\nWe need to close/block russian or pro-russian websites.",
">\n\nOh no!",
">\n\nI just know its going to be a dark day if news reporters/programs are no longer allowed to make up news and are required to tell the entire story about something. \nSadly if you take away the freedom to blabber from a roof top, you also take away freedom of press",
">\n\nWhy not, news websites are a weapon and can be used by either side.",
">\n\nHmmmm. Interesting",
">\n\nThe beginning of the end",
">\n\nSuch a fascist",
">\n\nChurches next?",
">\n\nAlready",
">\n\nIt's very reasonable to find this offputting, but a ton of westerners are showing their chauvinism in this thread. Acting like any/every NATO country hasn't/wouldn't do this in times of war or great conflict is just asinine, governments pretty much everywhere will regulate whose propaganda is legal and whose isn't. Not saying it's always justified, but many westerners are acting like their shit don't stink.",
">\n\nBaltics and lot of EU countries have banned russian propoganda chanels. I agree with this. Russian propoganda is no joke and i would not recomend it for uninitiated.",
">\n\nThey didn’t ban Russian propaganda channels. Law allows government to block any news website they feel necessary. Given the track record of corruption in Ukrainian governance, this can’t be good.\nEdit: grammar",
">\n\nHaving a standard of what qualifies as news while engaged in a propaganda attack from a country several times your size if propferly monitored information through a board and independent laws could be a net positive\nI’m the USA the repeal of the fairness doctorine is often sited as a reason the news ended up with broadcasters telling people not to take a vaccine during a pandemic",
">\n\nWonder if Zelenskky will be Ukraine's ~~Dictator~~ President in 10 years time.",
">\n\nGet your popcorn while redditors try to tell you why this is a good thing and Zelensky can do no wrong",
">\n\nYikes",
">\n\nUkraine was corrupt as all hell before Russia invaded, and continue corrupt and not worthy of trust. Just because they're fighting for their sovereignty against Putin's evil ass doesn't mean they get a blank check to do whatever the fuck they want and pass it off as correct or for some greater good. This is authoritarian bullshit, nothing else.",
">\n\nIt's quite interesting to see the Zelensky fan boys doing their mental gymnastics to defend this policy. Having a government control what you can see is not good at all: it's a tactic thar has been used by most of the worst rulers in history: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.",
">\n\nI can understand why but honestly I think it’s a very slippery slope that most humans aren’t able to handle. Where’s the line at what is ok and what isn’t. A human decides that and humans are fallible.",
">\n\nThey were right to question this move. I hope the good President/Warrior isn't losing his head. This war is insane.",
">\n\nOne the one hand not too good depending on Implementation. One the other hand the legal framework to go against russian propaganda, misinformation and other Media based attenpts against ukraine.",
">\n\nThere is a lot of anti-Ukraine posts on OP’s profile, take this news with a grain of salt",
">\n\nThe UK blocked Russia Today and Sputnik from UK Satellites to stop their propoganda. It's a sensible thing to do in times of conflict.. we did the same to Nazi Germany also.",
">\n\nI think I just lost all respect for this guy",
">\n\nSecond most corrupt country in Europe (after Russia)... What else do you expect.",
">\n\nTough to balance government overreach against foreign interference.",
">\n\nThat's not good.",
">\n\nDon't pull a \"Russia\" bro. Wrong path to be taking.",
">\n\nYou do realize Russian propaganda channels are there and available to zombify people?\nI have spent so much of my personal time to report Youtube Channel24 videos and you have to show in each video where there is an explicit piece where there was a terrorist speech, it is tedious !! Also, noone seem to read an article cause the content is not like that at all",
">\n\nFor some people (especially here on reddit lmao) russian propaganda is any piece of informations you disagree with, and anyone saying it is either a bot or russian troll",
">\n\nRemember when the Russians invaded claiming there were Nazis in Ukraine?\nPepperidge Farms remembers.",
">\n\nPutin is not the good guy, but this doesn't mean Zelensky and the Ukranian government are a bunch of angels.",
">\n\nHe has cracked down on unions too.",
">\n\nDuring the civil war Lincoln has confederate sympathizing reports thrown in jail without trial. \nThis is not new",
">\n\nSomething seriously off with this man,",
">\n\nI’m sure when peace arrives, and one day Zelenskyy is replaced by a nefarious leader this law will also be remove right? Right?",
">\n\nLol watching this happen in slow motion while supposed lovers of freedom and the Ukrainian people just worship this man, who is an actor and he’s just gradually changing his role.",
">\n\nFreedom of speech? Hahaha, this is no better than Russia or China.",
">\n\nWhat a fucking dishonest headline. Shame on this publisher.",
">\n\nThis is a heck of a misleading headline, the law outlines blatant Russian propaganda sites as the issue. This is almost as bad as the reporting of them “banning orthodox religion” no they banned the orthodox Russian church, that church was using their religion as a cover to transport information back to Russia.",
">\n\nBad idea.",
">\n\nRussian propaganda is no joke and Ukraine probably needs the ability to block it. It's a shame this wasn't passed as wartime emergency legislation with an automatic repeal date though.",
">\n\nNothing to see here, just the good guys fighting against evil Russia 😅",
">\n\nAnd down the slippery slope we continue to slide.",
">\n\nHalf the problem with war now is the media giving g the game away ... there should 100% be restrictions on what the media can post during war time",
">\n\nWell, this headline is awful. First of all we already have such thing since 2015 I believe (one of popular examples is \"vk\" website), secondly - it's just EU standards. \nBtw we still don't have \"war censorship\", you can critisize government all you want.",
">\n\nImagine defending media censorship. China must be proud",
">\n\nRussia does exactly the same thing blocking websites that they consider to be spreading misinformation. And this is obviously bad.\nYet, the amount of double standards in this thread with people thinking that \"it's fine when Ukraine does it\" is absurd.\nBefore the war Ukraine was always on the top positions of most corrupt countries in Europe. This law WILL be abused.",
">\n\nRemember when he said he wanted to run his country more like a democracy…yeah, he just wants those dollars from the U.S",
">\n\nYup this is not the right way to do stuff... If you really wanna show that you are cleaning up the corruptness in your country then don't start making laws like this shit.",
">\n\nVery freedom loving and democratic",
">\n\nNothing says countering russian propaganda like censorship and more propaganda 👍",
">\n\nWatch Ukraine turn into a brutal dictatorship lead by the dancing with the stars jokey guy.",
">\n\nIts the same laws that govern the EU.",
">\n\nWell the corruption continues. “I think it’s good when we do it” Is not a good justification.",
">\n\nDictator for life",
">\n\nIt should only be valid as long as the war against Russia.",
">\n\nRussian \"new\" Websites, which actually are just propaganda machineries, should ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE be blocked.",
">\n\nUkraine has its own propaganda too.",
">\n\nName one nation in a conflict that doesn't censor and put out nationalistic/propaganda. Edited to clarify.",
">\n\nExactly man, that is why I'm saying that censoring is not the right call. Once the government censors you from reading international media, you are influenced by your own government and you know and think only what they want you to know and think. Having trust in your own government is ok but trusting it blindly is not. It makes you easily influenced by your own government,a puppet and as you said, every nation in conflict is making propaganda.",
">\n\nNo different than really any other country that has been in a total war. I just hope that's it's a temporary war measure, which I'm not sure it is.",
">\n\nTotally normal behavior",
">\n\nSounds like news sensorship to me..",
">\n\nHope rises. Discontent rises slightly.\nBeware of the poet's suicide.\nP.s. This is a game reference",
">\n\n1000% normal in war times. Many countries have done this before. It's impossible for Ukraine not to do this given how much Russia is investing into disinformation. Literally having speaker cars driving through the streets with propaganda 24/7. Broadcasting fake news into Ukraine through all mediums. If they get to a large group of people in the US imagine the amount of people they can influence when it comes to their neighbors.\nThe only way they can get Ukraine to lose the war is to break the people's will to fight and they're doing this by not only bombing schools, playgrounds, hospitals and powerplants to freeze them to death but also spreading propaganda to make the people second guess their leadership",
">\n\nCountries do this all the time. Even the US.\nStop trying to vilify Ukraine to appease that shit cabbage Putin. Russia invaded them, not the other way around.",
">\n\nI love watching people try to balance not being called out on ignoring Ukraine's pre-existing corruption and keeping the \"Ukraine = unquestionable good guys\" narrative.\nThere's nothing that says war HAS to be \"good guys vs bad guys\".",
">\n\nPeople have every right to complain about this. But remember Ukraine is fighting in the fields for their very existence.",
">\n\nZelensky understands Democracy more than people think. He's most likely changing it now because of the WAR so that not much information gets back to the enemy.. Remember when Ukraine did both big successful offensives they had a Media Blackout.",
">\n\nOnly state-approved propaganda is authorized",
">\n\nPeople are dumbasses in this thread, and have no idea how propaganda, and filtering media works. There's a reason why propaganda is dangerous, and there are reasons why it's blocked.\nNarrow minded AF.",
">\n\nIn war, certain civil liberties are curtailed. It is this way, it’s always been this way, and it will always be this way. War is not a game. It’s not good that this happens, of course, but it’s one of the many reasons war is bad.",
">\n\nThis definitely isn't suspicious at all",
">\n\nIt’s a standard phenomenon at war time."
] |
>
Weeeird. Can’t wait to read all the comments somehow blaming this on Russia. | [
"Just curious, how did the US regulate media during WWII if at all? Obviously the war department was churning out war news and propaganda, but did they censor/restrict any media from being published?",
">\n\nYes, absolutely. They formed the Office of Censorship and heavily regulated the press, especially radio. But it was almost entirely geared towards preventing information on troop movements and weather from getting out, and coded enemy messages from getting in. They didn't force stations to broadcast propaganda or ban negative stories, and most of the restrictions were followed voluntarily.\nThere was also the Office of War Information which was responsible for producing propaganda and rejected film scripts that were critical or negative regarding the war effort - but they did not restrict the press to my knowledge.",
">\n\nSuper interesting! Thanks for sharing. Yes it seems this was a bit more functional about what comes in and out of the country, not necessarily with what’s published domestically as far as swaying public opinion. Also TIL the catch phrase “loose lips sink ships” came from this agency.\nThe voluntary aspect is somewhat enlightening as to how unified the country was in the war effort. The cynic in me makes me even more curious if there was other censorship at play outside of this agency that helped create that sentiment. I feel like someone would have replied about some landmark Supreme Court case by now though if that were the case.",
">\n\nAmerican's have a curious ability to get in line when there is a clear and present danger to the nation. Someone summed it up with \"You can always count on American's to do the right thing when they have no other option.\"",
">\n\nWinston Churchill famously stated “Americans will always do the right thing, only after they have tried everything else.\"\nIs that the quote you are thinking of?",
">\n\nIt was attributed to him, but tracing things down, it was apparent not said by him and I’ve heard both versions.",
">\n\nLawmakers have touted the bill as an effort to bring Ukraine's media laws closer to European Union standards as the country makes a bid to join the 27-member bloc. They have also argued that it will help counter Russian propaganda as Russia's invasion of Ukraine nears its one-year anniversary.\nBut organizations representing journalists say the law will erode press freedoms in Ukraine. Under the law, Ukraine's media regulator could block websites that are not registered with the government as news organizations, The Kyiv Independent reported on Friday. \nThe law is at odds with freedoms given to the press in other parts of Europe, the European Federation of Journalists said in a statement on Friday, according to the Times. \nEdit: because some users argued (with justification) that my post kept specific details hidden, I added the rest of the news post. I also checked the Kyiv Independent and it checks out.",
">\n\nWhile this is true, if I'm not mistaken some EU members have still spoken out against the bill - mainly because the new regulatory body will be led/run by the federal government, whereas in the EU they're generally a separate entity from the government run by civilians\nStill a step in the right direction, but I can see where people worry",
">\n\nHow is censorship a right step in any direction?",
">\n\nIt's indeed a double edged sword. On the one hand self-proclaimed news networks might spread their political agenda or incite illegal behaviour, on the other hand it's a real shortcut to control the media. This needs to be handled very carefully and probably by a body that's not interwoven with the government.",
">\n\nThere are few good options in war, especially a total war where the very survival of a country and ethnolinguistic group is at risk. Zelenskyy is probably going a bit far, but it’s hard to really blame him.",
">\n\nDepends on what the censorship is… trying to dispel discontentment with current ruling party or suppressing enemy state misinformation.",
">\n\nI think it's safe to infer the reasoning is to filter propaganda. I don't think there is much discontent with the current ruling party. Zelensky\"s approval ratings have been through the roof. Although, it's an easy power to abuse in the wrong hands.",
">\n\nI mean, can you think of a single instance in history where censorship was a net societal benefit, rolled back when no longer necessary, and not abused over the long-term? Nothing comes to mind.\nJournalists surely also know this to be the case, hence their outspoken opposition to the measure.",
">\n\nAbraham Lincoln suspending habeas corpus in the civil war is probably the best example for Americans in here. Would it be tolerated during peacetime? hell no. Would it be tolerated when the entire country is at an inflection point like the Ukraine is in 2023 and the US in 1861. Yes.\nedit: left out Abe's last name",
">\n\nWhat's it like to be on a first-name basis with Abraham Lincoln?",
">\n\nIt does make sense to block Russian \"news\" channels but its easily open to abuse",
">\n\nThis. Sounds like the Sedition Act of 1917. Easy to pass during wartime and makes sense, but probably wouldn’t get passed during peacetime. \nIt also doesn’t help that Ukraine was like #31 on the world’s corruption index prior to the war.",
">\n\nI vaguely recall reading that prior to the war Ukraine was the second most corrupt country in Europe, behind Russia.",
">\n\nThat's pretty much why Zelensky won the elections, he ran on an anti-corruption platform and has actually done a lot to combat it",
">\n\nLike what?",
">\n\nno more oligarchs",
">\n\nYou really think he ended the oligarchy? And it will only get 100x worse after the war when western businessmen come in to “fix” the country.",
">\n\nLmao this. We should all remember that he was also named in the Panama papers for holding 20+ million overseas",
">\n\nWhats so weird about successful actor having 20million to their name?",
">\n\nThey’ve been blocking the BBC on and off for years.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest lessons the world will learn from this conflict is that while Ukraine is/are the good guys… they are far, far behind a system that is akin to the western world.\nmy father’s grandfather was from Ukraine.\nAs he likes to say, Ukraine had 30 years to get their shit together so that when this day (02/24/22, Russia’s invasion which was always an inevitability if you know Ukraine, Ukraine’s history and geopolitics) arrived they’d be more than just militarily prepared.\nThey would be a part of NATO.. but Ukraine wanted to dip its toes in both democracy and wide-scale corruption.",
">\n\nFrom what I understand, the oligarchs and who grabbed up all the candy when the USSR piñata ruptured have been a big part of the problem. They have lost a lot of power and wealth, and some experts believe that this could create a political space for serious reform. I sure hope so!",
">\n\nExactly not to mention many oligarchs actually own news outlets and even television stations. I get what they’re trying to do given the war, but they have to be careful with the execution of it because it’s a step away from authoritarian control over news and media. News and media should be free but within limits too. Ex. Carlson tucker on Fox News in the US isn’t exactly unbiased. If there was a Ukrainian counterpart, they’d try to shut it down.",
">\n\nA nation in war time does not have the luxury of entertaining 100% freedom of information, especially considering the constant misinformation campaigns waged by Russia on top of its land war.",
">\n\nShutting on and off news websites? Banning political parties? BAWWW TYRANNY.\n\nPeople should not be naive, Ukraine is at war, the survival of their nation is at stake.",
">\n\nPrecisely, and psyops against Ukraine are extremely active.\nI hope they can reach Western values one day, but this is war against a much bigger Country that does not play fair. \nLet's let Ukraine win this war first and give them some time to rebuild before their culture becomes more Western.",
">\n\nHere in Adelaide, Australia, we did that. In the days before websites so he wasn't blocked, but a certain editor knew he wasn't welcome and had to leave town. He was an awful liar and very divisive. Inherited a newspaper from his dad called 'The News'.\nAfter he left town he started a company named after the Adelaide paper, NewsCorp. Rupert Murdoch was the name he went by (though his first name is really Keith, not Rupert). Wonder whatever happened to him?",
">\n\nHe got mad and decided to ruin the world.",
">\n\n\"I think it's good when we do it\" is a dangerous justification",
">\n\nYes, it is very similar to how the freedom of press declined in Russia. All medias were required to be registered by some governmental department in order to \"control the flow of information from abroad\". In no time it became the instrument of banning unwanted media.\nThough I admit banning Russian state media is for the better. Could they be banned in Russia itself, too?",
">\n\nThe thing is who defines that the media is pro-Russian. While it stays for the Ukrainian government to define, Ukrainian freedom of speech basically is being destroyed.",
">\n\nNot really enough information in the article to make an informed opinion on this.\n \nDecision was made by parliament, Zelenskyy's role in this is to sign the law, much like other world leaders don't necessarily agree with everything they have to sign.\nThe article mentions this is to allow them to ban websites not listed as media, which to me means the ability to ban any website if it isn't a registered media website. So, specifically to not allow them to block news websites so long as they are registered.\nAlso mentions this was to try and bring them more in line with EU countries, while at the same time saying it does the opposite.\n \nDo we have a link to the actual text of the new law?",
">\n\nSlippery slope",
">\n\nMost of the west have already blocked RT for their disinformation.",
">\n\nPrivate companies blocking is one thing, but governments is very different.\nA lot of laws created with \"good intentions\" are very often used for bad things, especially in countries with long history of corruption like Ukraine.",
">\n\nFrance is blocking RT",
">\n\nThese things happen during war, in every country.\nThe real test is seeing what laws will be repealed once this is all over imo.",
">\n\n\nThe real test is seeing what laws will be repealed once this is all over\n\nNone of them will be. Governments never voluntarily surrender any measure of control over the people. That's why the US is still officially in a state of national emergency 22 years after 9/11: so that the government elites can keep using their \"temporary\" emergency powers.",
">\n\nThe exact opposite has been happening in a lot of cases. The war has been used as an excuse to carry out a lot of deregulation and liberalization",
">\n\nLike when they banned left wing opposition parties?",
">\n\nArticle says websites not registered as media could be blocked. Kind of the opposite of what the headline says...",
">\n\nGovernments never relinquish power once they have it. Look at how the patriot act went from protecting our country to taking our rights. This is not a slippery slope. This is what corruption looks like. I really want Ukraine to succeed but decisions like this gives me trepidation.",
">\n\nRussia China bans websites \"fascists, ugly despots, violating human rights\" \nsomeone else does it \"understandable, well within their rights, good step\"\nAn accurate portrayal of exceptionalism",
">\n\nPeople have a hard time applying the same logic to things they like.",
">\n\nCool, there is certainly zero propaganda coming out Ukraine, for sure.",
">\n\nHa!",
">\n\nThat sounds like a healthy and not at all a government propaganda machine.",
">\n\nIt’s their country, let ‘em do as they choose. I can understand it during wartime, but in peacetime it sounds like one of those slippery slopes….",
">\n\nConsidering that before the war started everyone was talking about how corrupt the Ukraine government was I'd expect this to be abused for the duration of the war and after.",
">\n\nWestern media can be just as bad at spouting Russian propaganda. It seems like the editors have no ability to disseminate when I see headlines on APNews/Reuters weekly about how \"Putin is ready to negotiate but Ukraine refuses\".",
">\n\nI mean, this Business Insider article is a pretty fantastic case in point:\nare there reasonable concerns about this law? Yup.\nAre there extremely good reasons to pass it regardless, in a state of war against an adversary which thrives off propaganda? Also yes.\nWill Business Insider try and \"both sides\" this to get the \"BWUH 1984\" crowd arguing about their article? Final yes.",
">\n\nWell, Ukraine has never been the democratic heaven that the west is portraying it as in order to feed the propaganda. It's the most corrupt country in Europe and political opposition prior to the invasion was also suppressed.\nOne of Elensky's opposition leaders was in house arrest, although I can't remember his name. I think he escaped after the war started.",
">\n\nFreedom Fighter bans Dissent",
">\n\nThis is never good",
">\n\nYou either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.\n… Or maybe it’s to block Russian propaganda; idk",
">\n\nGovernment controlled media… if anyone thinks this is a good idea then you’re wrong",
">\n\nWhen has censorship ever been on the right side of history?",
">\n\nLincoln infamously censored free speech and the press during the American civil war, and often arrested (without due process!) anyone publishing media opposing the draft or expressing sympathy for the south",
">\n\n\"don't listen to that propaganda, listen to this propaganda\"",
">\n\nAnd so it begins.",
">\n\nI wonder how many pro-working class news outlets will suddenly be removed because they’re critical of Ukraine’s bourgeois government.",
">\n\nThe west is gonna act shocked when this war is over and it turns out Ukraine is still a corrupt place, but saying that makes me pro Russian or some shit",
">\n\nWhat irks me is them saying that being in the EU will supposedly make things better…",
">\n\nAs a country at war, censorship is not surprising. What will be telling is how they behave once the war is over.",
">\n\nSomething a totally not fascist would do, right?",
">\n\nwhen news reporting is killing your soldiers",
">\n\nHe already banned opposing political parties. What’s next?",
">\n\nThey also banned Russian and Rusyn languages schools. Its an ethnostate, simple as.",
">\n\nWar tends to be bad for freedom of speech. The Ukrainian people have a right to hear what pro-Russian media is saying.",
">\n\nAnd yet people claim that this guy is the savior of democracy? Aahahahahah, m'kay.",
">\n\nHonestly this isn't news. Countries are well known for curtailing news reporting during wartime. The US and UK did it during WW2. You don't want news media reporting the location of your troops or movements. \nThe test to democracy isn't what's passed during wartime, it's what's rescinded when war is over. When Ukraine eventually wins, the question will be how well do they transition to functioning, minimally corrupt transparent democracy. Will Zelensky and his successors freely give up power? Will the people elect fascist white nationalists who contributed to the war effort? The future remains to be seen. Well intentions can easily be lead astray.",
">\n\n“Could” is probably doing a lot of work here.",
">\n\nThe problem with that is that it shouldn’t. Laws need to be scoped heavily, or they will be rife with abuse.",
">\n\nSo censorship is suddenly ok because someone that’s not Russia did it.",
">\n\nThe headline sounds terrible. However reading helps add sense to it. \nBut I can't help to wonder whether blocking news websites due to \"weaponized media\" is a good thing or bad thing. I feel there's a gray line here that could be getting crossed and one has to question \"Is this propaganda that's being blocked, or is this our country censoring media brainwashing us in an attempt to strengthen their resolve?\" \nI'm all for Ukraine in this war, but in terms of a country censoring media, it's well.... a sticky subject. What action is the correct action when your enemies are using it as a weapon to confuse the public opinion?",
">\n\nI have no problem with this, RT is blocked in my country and Europe",
">\n\nafaik this is just ukraine setting up a media regulator along EU directives - all countries must have these mechanisms.",
">\n\nEU directives aren’t regulated by the government. Ukraine’s will be",
">\n\nDuring war time, I think that's fine. It's important to minimize Russian propaganda and to make sure no military information gets leaked.",
">\n\nIf the independent regulator can't be trusted during war time, why can it be trusted during peace time?",
">\n\nTo be very clear, this is many steps too far for peacetime and this bill isn't limited to wartime.\nI'm not Ukrainian and not an expert on the bill by any means but placing this under the same umbrella as the ~~federal~~ national government is dangerous and exposes the country to big problems down the road.\nI could defend it if the bill explicitly was for wartime. And many bills have expiration dates. But this is not good.",
">\n\nBut I thought he was about democracy?",
">\n\nGood if it's for the russian news websites only!\nNow, how about Ukraine's president fix that law forbidding romanian language to be taught to the romanian minority in Ukraine?\nAr we good neighbors respecting each other or are we not?",
">\n\nFinally someone who understands what is going on here.",
">\n\nGenius",
">\n\nAuto correct typo in my first post! Fixed.\nNot at all supporting suppression of dissent, but there has to be some way to block intentionally slander and misinformation, the hawking of all out lies through garbage like Alex Jones from bending the public discourse, and causing serious social harm. \nParading conspiracy theories or promoting propaganda created by the FSB to destabilize democracy isn't journalism, and isn't news. Legit journalism runs on facts and as such self corrects as better information comes to light. Propaganda either points to a new distraction or digs deeper into a lie, as do its adherents.",
">\n\nNo idea what people are complaining about. Ukraine had pro-Russian politicians in the parliament, russian fake news and pro-russian KGB \"church\" freely acting in Ukraine for years right before the invasion. The real question is why the didn't shut down them long before.",
">\n\nThe Smith act of 1940 comes to mind.\nUkraine is under threat of genocide. Let's see what happens after they win.",
">\n\nWe need to close/block russian or pro-russian websites.",
">\n\nOh no!",
">\n\nI just know its going to be a dark day if news reporters/programs are no longer allowed to make up news and are required to tell the entire story about something. \nSadly if you take away the freedom to blabber from a roof top, you also take away freedom of press",
">\n\nWhy not, news websites are a weapon and can be used by either side.",
">\n\nHmmmm. Interesting",
">\n\nThe beginning of the end",
">\n\nSuch a fascist",
">\n\nChurches next?",
">\n\nAlready",
">\n\nIt's very reasonable to find this offputting, but a ton of westerners are showing their chauvinism in this thread. Acting like any/every NATO country hasn't/wouldn't do this in times of war or great conflict is just asinine, governments pretty much everywhere will regulate whose propaganda is legal and whose isn't. Not saying it's always justified, but many westerners are acting like their shit don't stink.",
">\n\nBaltics and lot of EU countries have banned russian propoganda chanels. I agree with this. Russian propoganda is no joke and i would not recomend it for uninitiated.",
">\n\nThey didn’t ban Russian propaganda channels. Law allows government to block any news website they feel necessary. Given the track record of corruption in Ukrainian governance, this can’t be good.\nEdit: grammar",
">\n\nHaving a standard of what qualifies as news while engaged in a propaganda attack from a country several times your size if propferly monitored information through a board and independent laws could be a net positive\nI’m the USA the repeal of the fairness doctorine is often sited as a reason the news ended up with broadcasters telling people not to take a vaccine during a pandemic",
">\n\nWonder if Zelenskky will be Ukraine's ~~Dictator~~ President in 10 years time.",
">\n\nGet your popcorn while redditors try to tell you why this is a good thing and Zelensky can do no wrong",
">\n\nYikes",
">\n\nUkraine was corrupt as all hell before Russia invaded, and continue corrupt and not worthy of trust. Just because they're fighting for their sovereignty against Putin's evil ass doesn't mean they get a blank check to do whatever the fuck they want and pass it off as correct or for some greater good. This is authoritarian bullshit, nothing else.",
">\n\nIt's quite interesting to see the Zelensky fan boys doing their mental gymnastics to defend this policy. Having a government control what you can see is not good at all: it's a tactic thar has been used by most of the worst rulers in history: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.",
">\n\nI can understand why but honestly I think it’s a very slippery slope that most humans aren’t able to handle. Where’s the line at what is ok and what isn’t. A human decides that and humans are fallible.",
">\n\nThey were right to question this move. I hope the good President/Warrior isn't losing his head. This war is insane.",
">\n\nOne the one hand not too good depending on Implementation. One the other hand the legal framework to go against russian propaganda, misinformation and other Media based attenpts against ukraine.",
">\n\nThere is a lot of anti-Ukraine posts on OP’s profile, take this news with a grain of salt",
">\n\nThe UK blocked Russia Today and Sputnik from UK Satellites to stop their propoganda. It's a sensible thing to do in times of conflict.. we did the same to Nazi Germany also.",
">\n\nI think I just lost all respect for this guy",
">\n\nSecond most corrupt country in Europe (after Russia)... What else do you expect.",
">\n\nTough to balance government overreach against foreign interference.",
">\n\nThat's not good.",
">\n\nDon't pull a \"Russia\" bro. Wrong path to be taking.",
">\n\nYou do realize Russian propaganda channels are there and available to zombify people?\nI have spent so much of my personal time to report Youtube Channel24 videos and you have to show in each video where there is an explicit piece where there was a terrorist speech, it is tedious !! Also, noone seem to read an article cause the content is not like that at all",
">\n\nFor some people (especially here on reddit lmao) russian propaganda is any piece of informations you disagree with, and anyone saying it is either a bot or russian troll",
">\n\nRemember when the Russians invaded claiming there were Nazis in Ukraine?\nPepperidge Farms remembers.",
">\n\nPutin is not the good guy, but this doesn't mean Zelensky and the Ukranian government are a bunch of angels.",
">\n\nHe has cracked down on unions too.",
">\n\nDuring the civil war Lincoln has confederate sympathizing reports thrown in jail without trial. \nThis is not new",
">\n\nSomething seriously off with this man,",
">\n\nI’m sure when peace arrives, and one day Zelenskyy is replaced by a nefarious leader this law will also be remove right? Right?",
">\n\nLol watching this happen in slow motion while supposed lovers of freedom and the Ukrainian people just worship this man, who is an actor and he’s just gradually changing his role.",
">\n\nFreedom of speech? Hahaha, this is no better than Russia or China.",
">\n\nWhat a fucking dishonest headline. Shame on this publisher.",
">\n\nThis is a heck of a misleading headline, the law outlines blatant Russian propaganda sites as the issue. This is almost as bad as the reporting of them “banning orthodox religion” no they banned the orthodox Russian church, that church was using their religion as a cover to transport information back to Russia.",
">\n\nBad idea.",
">\n\nRussian propaganda is no joke and Ukraine probably needs the ability to block it. It's a shame this wasn't passed as wartime emergency legislation with an automatic repeal date though.",
">\n\nNothing to see here, just the good guys fighting against evil Russia 😅",
">\n\nAnd down the slippery slope we continue to slide.",
">\n\nHalf the problem with war now is the media giving g the game away ... there should 100% be restrictions on what the media can post during war time",
">\n\nWell, this headline is awful. First of all we already have such thing since 2015 I believe (one of popular examples is \"vk\" website), secondly - it's just EU standards. \nBtw we still don't have \"war censorship\", you can critisize government all you want.",
">\n\nImagine defending media censorship. China must be proud",
">\n\nRussia does exactly the same thing blocking websites that they consider to be spreading misinformation. And this is obviously bad.\nYet, the amount of double standards in this thread with people thinking that \"it's fine when Ukraine does it\" is absurd.\nBefore the war Ukraine was always on the top positions of most corrupt countries in Europe. This law WILL be abused.",
">\n\nRemember when he said he wanted to run his country more like a democracy…yeah, he just wants those dollars from the U.S",
">\n\nYup this is not the right way to do stuff... If you really wanna show that you are cleaning up the corruptness in your country then don't start making laws like this shit.",
">\n\nVery freedom loving and democratic",
">\n\nNothing says countering russian propaganda like censorship and more propaganda 👍",
">\n\nWatch Ukraine turn into a brutal dictatorship lead by the dancing with the stars jokey guy.",
">\n\nIts the same laws that govern the EU.",
">\n\nWell the corruption continues. “I think it’s good when we do it” Is not a good justification.",
">\n\nDictator for life",
">\n\nIt should only be valid as long as the war against Russia.",
">\n\nRussian \"new\" Websites, which actually are just propaganda machineries, should ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE be blocked.",
">\n\nUkraine has its own propaganda too.",
">\n\nName one nation in a conflict that doesn't censor and put out nationalistic/propaganda. Edited to clarify.",
">\n\nExactly man, that is why I'm saying that censoring is not the right call. Once the government censors you from reading international media, you are influenced by your own government and you know and think only what they want you to know and think. Having trust in your own government is ok but trusting it blindly is not. It makes you easily influenced by your own government,a puppet and as you said, every nation in conflict is making propaganda.",
">\n\nNo different than really any other country that has been in a total war. I just hope that's it's a temporary war measure, which I'm not sure it is.",
">\n\nTotally normal behavior",
">\n\nSounds like news sensorship to me..",
">\n\nHope rises. Discontent rises slightly.\nBeware of the poet's suicide.\nP.s. This is a game reference",
">\n\n1000% normal in war times. Many countries have done this before. It's impossible for Ukraine not to do this given how much Russia is investing into disinformation. Literally having speaker cars driving through the streets with propaganda 24/7. Broadcasting fake news into Ukraine through all mediums. If they get to a large group of people in the US imagine the amount of people they can influence when it comes to their neighbors.\nThe only way they can get Ukraine to lose the war is to break the people's will to fight and they're doing this by not only bombing schools, playgrounds, hospitals and powerplants to freeze them to death but also spreading propaganda to make the people second guess their leadership",
">\n\nCountries do this all the time. Even the US.\nStop trying to vilify Ukraine to appease that shit cabbage Putin. Russia invaded them, not the other way around.",
">\n\nI love watching people try to balance not being called out on ignoring Ukraine's pre-existing corruption and keeping the \"Ukraine = unquestionable good guys\" narrative.\nThere's nothing that says war HAS to be \"good guys vs bad guys\".",
">\n\nPeople have every right to complain about this. But remember Ukraine is fighting in the fields for their very existence.",
">\n\nZelensky understands Democracy more than people think. He's most likely changing it now because of the WAR so that not much information gets back to the enemy.. Remember when Ukraine did both big successful offensives they had a Media Blackout.",
">\n\nOnly state-approved propaganda is authorized",
">\n\nPeople are dumbasses in this thread, and have no idea how propaganda, and filtering media works. There's a reason why propaganda is dangerous, and there are reasons why it's blocked.\nNarrow minded AF.",
">\n\nIn war, certain civil liberties are curtailed. It is this way, it’s always been this way, and it will always be this way. War is not a game. It’s not good that this happens, of course, but it’s one of the many reasons war is bad.",
">\n\nThis definitely isn't suspicious at all",
">\n\nIt’s a standard phenomenon at war time.",
">\n\nOf course he did"
] |
>
Doesn't sound very Democratic to me, Bob | [
"Just curious, how did the US regulate media during WWII if at all? Obviously the war department was churning out war news and propaganda, but did they censor/restrict any media from being published?",
">\n\nYes, absolutely. They formed the Office of Censorship and heavily regulated the press, especially radio. But it was almost entirely geared towards preventing information on troop movements and weather from getting out, and coded enemy messages from getting in. They didn't force stations to broadcast propaganda or ban negative stories, and most of the restrictions were followed voluntarily.\nThere was also the Office of War Information which was responsible for producing propaganda and rejected film scripts that were critical or negative regarding the war effort - but they did not restrict the press to my knowledge.",
">\n\nSuper interesting! Thanks for sharing. Yes it seems this was a bit more functional about what comes in and out of the country, not necessarily with what’s published domestically as far as swaying public opinion. Also TIL the catch phrase “loose lips sink ships” came from this agency.\nThe voluntary aspect is somewhat enlightening as to how unified the country was in the war effort. The cynic in me makes me even more curious if there was other censorship at play outside of this agency that helped create that sentiment. I feel like someone would have replied about some landmark Supreme Court case by now though if that were the case.",
">\n\nAmerican's have a curious ability to get in line when there is a clear and present danger to the nation. Someone summed it up with \"You can always count on American's to do the right thing when they have no other option.\"",
">\n\nWinston Churchill famously stated “Americans will always do the right thing, only after they have tried everything else.\"\nIs that the quote you are thinking of?",
">\n\nIt was attributed to him, but tracing things down, it was apparent not said by him and I’ve heard both versions.",
">\n\nLawmakers have touted the bill as an effort to bring Ukraine's media laws closer to European Union standards as the country makes a bid to join the 27-member bloc. They have also argued that it will help counter Russian propaganda as Russia's invasion of Ukraine nears its one-year anniversary.\nBut organizations representing journalists say the law will erode press freedoms in Ukraine. Under the law, Ukraine's media regulator could block websites that are not registered with the government as news organizations, The Kyiv Independent reported on Friday. \nThe law is at odds with freedoms given to the press in other parts of Europe, the European Federation of Journalists said in a statement on Friday, according to the Times. \nEdit: because some users argued (with justification) that my post kept specific details hidden, I added the rest of the news post. I also checked the Kyiv Independent and it checks out.",
">\n\nWhile this is true, if I'm not mistaken some EU members have still spoken out against the bill - mainly because the new regulatory body will be led/run by the federal government, whereas in the EU they're generally a separate entity from the government run by civilians\nStill a step in the right direction, but I can see where people worry",
">\n\nHow is censorship a right step in any direction?",
">\n\nIt's indeed a double edged sword. On the one hand self-proclaimed news networks might spread their political agenda or incite illegal behaviour, on the other hand it's a real shortcut to control the media. This needs to be handled very carefully and probably by a body that's not interwoven with the government.",
">\n\nThere are few good options in war, especially a total war where the very survival of a country and ethnolinguistic group is at risk. Zelenskyy is probably going a bit far, but it’s hard to really blame him.",
">\n\nDepends on what the censorship is… trying to dispel discontentment with current ruling party or suppressing enemy state misinformation.",
">\n\nI think it's safe to infer the reasoning is to filter propaganda. I don't think there is much discontent with the current ruling party. Zelensky\"s approval ratings have been through the roof. Although, it's an easy power to abuse in the wrong hands.",
">\n\nI mean, can you think of a single instance in history where censorship was a net societal benefit, rolled back when no longer necessary, and not abused over the long-term? Nothing comes to mind.\nJournalists surely also know this to be the case, hence their outspoken opposition to the measure.",
">\n\nAbraham Lincoln suspending habeas corpus in the civil war is probably the best example for Americans in here. Would it be tolerated during peacetime? hell no. Would it be tolerated when the entire country is at an inflection point like the Ukraine is in 2023 and the US in 1861. Yes.\nedit: left out Abe's last name",
">\n\nWhat's it like to be on a first-name basis with Abraham Lincoln?",
">\n\nIt does make sense to block Russian \"news\" channels but its easily open to abuse",
">\n\nThis. Sounds like the Sedition Act of 1917. Easy to pass during wartime and makes sense, but probably wouldn’t get passed during peacetime. \nIt also doesn’t help that Ukraine was like #31 on the world’s corruption index prior to the war.",
">\n\nI vaguely recall reading that prior to the war Ukraine was the second most corrupt country in Europe, behind Russia.",
">\n\nThat's pretty much why Zelensky won the elections, he ran on an anti-corruption platform and has actually done a lot to combat it",
">\n\nLike what?",
">\n\nno more oligarchs",
">\n\nYou really think he ended the oligarchy? And it will only get 100x worse after the war when western businessmen come in to “fix” the country.",
">\n\nLmao this. We should all remember that he was also named in the Panama papers for holding 20+ million overseas",
">\n\nWhats so weird about successful actor having 20million to their name?",
">\n\nThey’ve been blocking the BBC on and off for years.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest lessons the world will learn from this conflict is that while Ukraine is/are the good guys… they are far, far behind a system that is akin to the western world.\nmy father’s grandfather was from Ukraine.\nAs he likes to say, Ukraine had 30 years to get their shit together so that when this day (02/24/22, Russia’s invasion which was always an inevitability if you know Ukraine, Ukraine’s history and geopolitics) arrived they’d be more than just militarily prepared.\nThey would be a part of NATO.. but Ukraine wanted to dip its toes in both democracy and wide-scale corruption.",
">\n\nFrom what I understand, the oligarchs and who grabbed up all the candy when the USSR piñata ruptured have been a big part of the problem. They have lost a lot of power and wealth, and some experts believe that this could create a political space for serious reform. I sure hope so!",
">\n\nExactly not to mention many oligarchs actually own news outlets and even television stations. I get what they’re trying to do given the war, but they have to be careful with the execution of it because it’s a step away from authoritarian control over news and media. News and media should be free but within limits too. Ex. Carlson tucker on Fox News in the US isn’t exactly unbiased. If there was a Ukrainian counterpart, they’d try to shut it down.",
">\n\nA nation in war time does not have the luxury of entertaining 100% freedom of information, especially considering the constant misinformation campaigns waged by Russia on top of its land war.",
">\n\nShutting on and off news websites? Banning political parties? BAWWW TYRANNY.\n\nPeople should not be naive, Ukraine is at war, the survival of their nation is at stake.",
">\n\nPrecisely, and psyops against Ukraine are extremely active.\nI hope they can reach Western values one day, but this is war against a much bigger Country that does not play fair. \nLet's let Ukraine win this war first and give them some time to rebuild before their culture becomes more Western.",
">\n\nHere in Adelaide, Australia, we did that. In the days before websites so he wasn't blocked, but a certain editor knew he wasn't welcome and had to leave town. He was an awful liar and very divisive. Inherited a newspaper from his dad called 'The News'.\nAfter he left town he started a company named after the Adelaide paper, NewsCorp. Rupert Murdoch was the name he went by (though his first name is really Keith, not Rupert). Wonder whatever happened to him?",
">\n\nHe got mad and decided to ruin the world.",
">\n\n\"I think it's good when we do it\" is a dangerous justification",
">\n\nYes, it is very similar to how the freedom of press declined in Russia. All medias were required to be registered by some governmental department in order to \"control the flow of information from abroad\". In no time it became the instrument of banning unwanted media.\nThough I admit banning Russian state media is for the better. Could they be banned in Russia itself, too?",
">\n\nThe thing is who defines that the media is pro-Russian. While it stays for the Ukrainian government to define, Ukrainian freedom of speech basically is being destroyed.",
">\n\nNot really enough information in the article to make an informed opinion on this.\n \nDecision was made by parliament, Zelenskyy's role in this is to sign the law, much like other world leaders don't necessarily agree with everything they have to sign.\nThe article mentions this is to allow them to ban websites not listed as media, which to me means the ability to ban any website if it isn't a registered media website. So, specifically to not allow them to block news websites so long as they are registered.\nAlso mentions this was to try and bring them more in line with EU countries, while at the same time saying it does the opposite.\n \nDo we have a link to the actual text of the new law?",
">\n\nSlippery slope",
">\n\nMost of the west have already blocked RT for their disinformation.",
">\n\nPrivate companies blocking is one thing, but governments is very different.\nA lot of laws created with \"good intentions\" are very often used for bad things, especially in countries with long history of corruption like Ukraine.",
">\n\nFrance is blocking RT",
">\n\nThese things happen during war, in every country.\nThe real test is seeing what laws will be repealed once this is all over imo.",
">\n\n\nThe real test is seeing what laws will be repealed once this is all over\n\nNone of them will be. Governments never voluntarily surrender any measure of control over the people. That's why the US is still officially in a state of national emergency 22 years after 9/11: so that the government elites can keep using their \"temporary\" emergency powers.",
">\n\nThe exact opposite has been happening in a lot of cases. The war has been used as an excuse to carry out a lot of deregulation and liberalization",
">\n\nLike when they banned left wing opposition parties?",
">\n\nArticle says websites not registered as media could be blocked. Kind of the opposite of what the headline says...",
">\n\nGovernments never relinquish power once they have it. Look at how the patriot act went from protecting our country to taking our rights. This is not a slippery slope. This is what corruption looks like. I really want Ukraine to succeed but decisions like this gives me trepidation.",
">\n\nRussia China bans websites \"fascists, ugly despots, violating human rights\" \nsomeone else does it \"understandable, well within their rights, good step\"\nAn accurate portrayal of exceptionalism",
">\n\nPeople have a hard time applying the same logic to things they like.",
">\n\nCool, there is certainly zero propaganda coming out Ukraine, for sure.",
">\n\nHa!",
">\n\nThat sounds like a healthy and not at all a government propaganda machine.",
">\n\nIt’s their country, let ‘em do as they choose. I can understand it during wartime, but in peacetime it sounds like one of those slippery slopes….",
">\n\nConsidering that before the war started everyone was talking about how corrupt the Ukraine government was I'd expect this to be abused for the duration of the war and after.",
">\n\nWestern media can be just as bad at spouting Russian propaganda. It seems like the editors have no ability to disseminate when I see headlines on APNews/Reuters weekly about how \"Putin is ready to negotiate but Ukraine refuses\".",
">\n\nI mean, this Business Insider article is a pretty fantastic case in point:\nare there reasonable concerns about this law? Yup.\nAre there extremely good reasons to pass it regardless, in a state of war against an adversary which thrives off propaganda? Also yes.\nWill Business Insider try and \"both sides\" this to get the \"BWUH 1984\" crowd arguing about their article? Final yes.",
">\n\nWell, Ukraine has never been the democratic heaven that the west is portraying it as in order to feed the propaganda. It's the most corrupt country in Europe and political opposition prior to the invasion was also suppressed.\nOne of Elensky's opposition leaders was in house arrest, although I can't remember his name. I think he escaped after the war started.",
">\n\nFreedom Fighter bans Dissent",
">\n\nThis is never good",
">\n\nYou either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.\n… Or maybe it’s to block Russian propaganda; idk",
">\n\nGovernment controlled media… if anyone thinks this is a good idea then you’re wrong",
">\n\nWhen has censorship ever been on the right side of history?",
">\n\nLincoln infamously censored free speech and the press during the American civil war, and often arrested (without due process!) anyone publishing media opposing the draft or expressing sympathy for the south",
">\n\n\"don't listen to that propaganda, listen to this propaganda\"",
">\n\nAnd so it begins.",
">\n\nI wonder how many pro-working class news outlets will suddenly be removed because they’re critical of Ukraine’s bourgeois government.",
">\n\nThe west is gonna act shocked when this war is over and it turns out Ukraine is still a corrupt place, but saying that makes me pro Russian or some shit",
">\n\nWhat irks me is them saying that being in the EU will supposedly make things better…",
">\n\nAs a country at war, censorship is not surprising. What will be telling is how they behave once the war is over.",
">\n\nSomething a totally not fascist would do, right?",
">\n\nwhen news reporting is killing your soldiers",
">\n\nHe already banned opposing political parties. What’s next?",
">\n\nThey also banned Russian and Rusyn languages schools. Its an ethnostate, simple as.",
">\n\nWar tends to be bad for freedom of speech. The Ukrainian people have a right to hear what pro-Russian media is saying.",
">\n\nAnd yet people claim that this guy is the savior of democracy? Aahahahahah, m'kay.",
">\n\nHonestly this isn't news. Countries are well known for curtailing news reporting during wartime. The US and UK did it during WW2. You don't want news media reporting the location of your troops or movements. \nThe test to democracy isn't what's passed during wartime, it's what's rescinded when war is over. When Ukraine eventually wins, the question will be how well do they transition to functioning, minimally corrupt transparent democracy. Will Zelensky and his successors freely give up power? Will the people elect fascist white nationalists who contributed to the war effort? The future remains to be seen. Well intentions can easily be lead astray.",
">\n\n“Could” is probably doing a lot of work here.",
">\n\nThe problem with that is that it shouldn’t. Laws need to be scoped heavily, or they will be rife with abuse.",
">\n\nSo censorship is suddenly ok because someone that’s not Russia did it.",
">\n\nThe headline sounds terrible. However reading helps add sense to it. \nBut I can't help to wonder whether blocking news websites due to \"weaponized media\" is a good thing or bad thing. I feel there's a gray line here that could be getting crossed and one has to question \"Is this propaganda that's being blocked, or is this our country censoring media brainwashing us in an attempt to strengthen their resolve?\" \nI'm all for Ukraine in this war, but in terms of a country censoring media, it's well.... a sticky subject. What action is the correct action when your enemies are using it as a weapon to confuse the public opinion?",
">\n\nI have no problem with this, RT is blocked in my country and Europe",
">\n\nafaik this is just ukraine setting up a media regulator along EU directives - all countries must have these mechanisms.",
">\n\nEU directives aren’t regulated by the government. Ukraine’s will be",
">\n\nDuring war time, I think that's fine. It's important to minimize Russian propaganda and to make sure no military information gets leaked.",
">\n\nIf the independent regulator can't be trusted during war time, why can it be trusted during peace time?",
">\n\nTo be very clear, this is many steps too far for peacetime and this bill isn't limited to wartime.\nI'm not Ukrainian and not an expert on the bill by any means but placing this under the same umbrella as the ~~federal~~ national government is dangerous and exposes the country to big problems down the road.\nI could defend it if the bill explicitly was for wartime. And many bills have expiration dates. But this is not good.",
">\n\nBut I thought he was about democracy?",
">\n\nGood if it's for the russian news websites only!\nNow, how about Ukraine's president fix that law forbidding romanian language to be taught to the romanian minority in Ukraine?\nAr we good neighbors respecting each other or are we not?",
">\n\nFinally someone who understands what is going on here.",
">\n\nGenius",
">\n\nAuto correct typo in my first post! Fixed.\nNot at all supporting suppression of dissent, but there has to be some way to block intentionally slander and misinformation, the hawking of all out lies through garbage like Alex Jones from bending the public discourse, and causing serious social harm. \nParading conspiracy theories or promoting propaganda created by the FSB to destabilize democracy isn't journalism, and isn't news. Legit journalism runs on facts and as such self corrects as better information comes to light. Propaganda either points to a new distraction or digs deeper into a lie, as do its adherents.",
">\n\nNo idea what people are complaining about. Ukraine had pro-Russian politicians in the parliament, russian fake news and pro-russian KGB \"church\" freely acting in Ukraine for years right before the invasion. The real question is why the didn't shut down them long before.",
">\n\nThe Smith act of 1940 comes to mind.\nUkraine is under threat of genocide. Let's see what happens after they win.",
">\n\nWe need to close/block russian or pro-russian websites.",
">\n\nOh no!",
">\n\nI just know its going to be a dark day if news reporters/programs are no longer allowed to make up news and are required to tell the entire story about something. \nSadly if you take away the freedom to blabber from a roof top, you also take away freedom of press",
">\n\nWhy not, news websites are a weapon and can be used by either side.",
">\n\nHmmmm. Interesting",
">\n\nThe beginning of the end",
">\n\nSuch a fascist",
">\n\nChurches next?",
">\n\nAlready",
">\n\nIt's very reasonable to find this offputting, but a ton of westerners are showing their chauvinism in this thread. Acting like any/every NATO country hasn't/wouldn't do this in times of war or great conflict is just asinine, governments pretty much everywhere will regulate whose propaganda is legal and whose isn't. Not saying it's always justified, but many westerners are acting like their shit don't stink.",
">\n\nBaltics and lot of EU countries have banned russian propoganda chanels. I agree with this. Russian propoganda is no joke and i would not recomend it for uninitiated.",
">\n\nThey didn’t ban Russian propaganda channels. Law allows government to block any news website they feel necessary. Given the track record of corruption in Ukrainian governance, this can’t be good.\nEdit: grammar",
">\n\nHaving a standard of what qualifies as news while engaged in a propaganda attack from a country several times your size if propferly monitored information through a board and independent laws could be a net positive\nI’m the USA the repeal of the fairness doctorine is often sited as a reason the news ended up with broadcasters telling people not to take a vaccine during a pandemic",
">\n\nWonder if Zelenskky will be Ukraine's ~~Dictator~~ President in 10 years time.",
">\n\nGet your popcorn while redditors try to tell you why this is a good thing and Zelensky can do no wrong",
">\n\nYikes",
">\n\nUkraine was corrupt as all hell before Russia invaded, and continue corrupt and not worthy of trust. Just because they're fighting for their sovereignty against Putin's evil ass doesn't mean they get a blank check to do whatever the fuck they want and pass it off as correct or for some greater good. This is authoritarian bullshit, nothing else.",
">\n\nIt's quite interesting to see the Zelensky fan boys doing their mental gymnastics to defend this policy. Having a government control what you can see is not good at all: it's a tactic thar has been used by most of the worst rulers in history: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.",
">\n\nI can understand why but honestly I think it’s a very slippery slope that most humans aren’t able to handle. Where’s the line at what is ok and what isn’t. A human decides that and humans are fallible.",
">\n\nThey were right to question this move. I hope the good President/Warrior isn't losing his head. This war is insane.",
">\n\nOne the one hand not too good depending on Implementation. One the other hand the legal framework to go against russian propaganda, misinformation and other Media based attenpts against ukraine.",
">\n\nThere is a lot of anti-Ukraine posts on OP’s profile, take this news with a grain of salt",
">\n\nThe UK blocked Russia Today and Sputnik from UK Satellites to stop their propoganda. It's a sensible thing to do in times of conflict.. we did the same to Nazi Germany also.",
">\n\nI think I just lost all respect for this guy",
">\n\nSecond most corrupt country in Europe (after Russia)... What else do you expect.",
">\n\nTough to balance government overreach against foreign interference.",
">\n\nThat's not good.",
">\n\nDon't pull a \"Russia\" bro. Wrong path to be taking.",
">\n\nYou do realize Russian propaganda channels are there and available to zombify people?\nI have spent so much of my personal time to report Youtube Channel24 videos and you have to show in each video where there is an explicit piece where there was a terrorist speech, it is tedious !! Also, noone seem to read an article cause the content is not like that at all",
">\n\nFor some people (especially here on reddit lmao) russian propaganda is any piece of informations you disagree with, and anyone saying it is either a bot or russian troll",
">\n\nRemember when the Russians invaded claiming there were Nazis in Ukraine?\nPepperidge Farms remembers.",
">\n\nPutin is not the good guy, but this doesn't mean Zelensky and the Ukranian government are a bunch of angels.",
">\n\nHe has cracked down on unions too.",
">\n\nDuring the civil war Lincoln has confederate sympathizing reports thrown in jail without trial. \nThis is not new",
">\n\nSomething seriously off with this man,",
">\n\nI’m sure when peace arrives, and one day Zelenskyy is replaced by a nefarious leader this law will also be remove right? Right?",
">\n\nLol watching this happen in slow motion while supposed lovers of freedom and the Ukrainian people just worship this man, who is an actor and he’s just gradually changing his role.",
">\n\nFreedom of speech? Hahaha, this is no better than Russia or China.",
">\n\nWhat a fucking dishonest headline. Shame on this publisher.",
">\n\nThis is a heck of a misleading headline, the law outlines blatant Russian propaganda sites as the issue. This is almost as bad as the reporting of them “banning orthodox religion” no they banned the orthodox Russian church, that church was using their religion as a cover to transport information back to Russia.",
">\n\nBad idea.",
">\n\nRussian propaganda is no joke and Ukraine probably needs the ability to block it. It's a shame this wasn't passed as wartime emergency legislation with an automatic repeal date though.",
">\n\nNothing to see here, just the good guys fighting against evil Russia 😅",
">\n\nAnd down the slippery slope we continue to slide.",
">\n\nHalf the problem with war now is the media giving g the game away ... there should 100% be restrictions on what the media can post during war time",
">\n\nWell, this headline is awful. First of all we already have such thing since 2015 I believe (one of popular examples is \"vk\" website), secondly - it's just EU standards. \nBtw we still don't have \"war censorship\", you can critisize government all you want.",
">\n\nImagine defending media censorship. China must be proud",
">\n\nRussia does exactly the same thing blocking websites that they consider to be spreading misinformation. And this is obviously bad.\nYet, the amount of double standards in this thread with people thinking that \"it's fine when Ukraine does it\" is absurd.\nBefore the war Ukraine was always on the top positions of most corrupt countries in Europe. This law WILL be abused.",
">\n\nRemember when he said he wanted to run his country more like a democracy…yeah, he just wants those dollars from the U.S",
">\n\nYup this is not the right way to do stuff... If you really wanna show that you are cleaning up the corruptness in your country then don't start making laws like this shit.",
">\n\nVery freedom loving and democratic",
">\n\nNothing says countering russian propaganda like censorship and more propaganda 👍",
">\n\nWatch Ukraine turn into a brutal dictatorship lead by the dancing with the stars jokey guy.",
">\n\nIts the same laws that govern the EU.",
">\n\nWell the corruption continues. “I think it’s good when we do it” Is not a good justification.",
">\n\nDictator for life",
">\n\nIt should only be valid as long as the war against Russia.",
">\n\nRussian \"new\" Websites, which actually are just propaganda machineries, should ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE be blocked.",
">\n\nUkraine has its own propaganda too.",
">\n\nName one nation in a conflict that doesn't censor and put out nationalistic/propaganda. Edited to clarify.",
">\n\nExactly man, that is why I'm saying that censoring is not the right call. Once the government censors you from reading international media, you are influenced by your own government and you know and think only what they want you to know and think. Having trust in your own government is ok but trusting it blindly is not. It makes you easily influenced by your own government,a puppet and as you said, every nation in conflict is making propaganda.",
">\n\nNo different than really any other country that has been in a total war. I just hope that's it's a temporary war measure, which I'm not sure it is.",
">\n\nTotally normal behavior",
">\n\nSounds like news sensorship to me..",
">\n\nHope rises. Discontent rises slightly.\nBeware of the poet's suicide.\nP.s. This is a game reference",
">\n\n1000% normal in war times. Many countries have done this before. It's impossible for Ukraine not to do this given how much Russia is investing into disinformation. Literally having speaker cars driving through the streets with propaganda 24/7. Broadcasting fake news into Ukraine through all mediums. If they get to a large group of people in the US imagine the amount of people they can influence when it comes to their neighbors.\nThe only way they can get Ukraine to lose the war is to break the people's will to fight and they're doing this by not only bombing schools, playgrounds, hospitals and powerplants to freeze them to death but also spreading propaganda to make the people second guess their leadership",
">\n\nCountries do this all the time. Even the US.\nStop trying to vilify Ukraine to appease that shit cabbage Putin. Russia invaded them, not the other way around.",
">\n\nI love watching people try to balance not being called out on ignoring Ukraine's pre-existing corruption and keeping the \"Ukraine = unquestionable good guys\" narrative.\nThere's nothing that says war HAS to be \"good guys vs bad guys\".",
">\n\nPeople have every right to complain about this. But remember Ukraine is fighting in the fields for their very existence.",
">\n\nZelensky understands Democracy more than people think. He's most likely changing it now because of the WAR so that not much information gets back to the enemy.. Remember when Ukraine did both big successful offensives they had a Media Blackout.",
">\n\nOnly state-approved propaganda is authorized",
">\n\nPeople are dumbasses in this thread, and have no idea how propaganda, and filtering media works. There's a reason why propaganda is dangerous, and there are reasons why it's blocked.\nNarrow minded AF.",
">\n\nIn war, certain civil liberties are curtailed. It is this way, it’s always been this way, and it will always be this way. War is not a game. It’s not good that this happens, of course, but it’s one of the many reasons war is bad.",
">\n\nThis definitely isn't suspicious at all",
">\n\nIt’s a standard phenomenon at war time.",
">\n\nOf course he did",
">\n\nWeeeird. Can’t wait to read all the comments somehow blaming this on Russia."
] |
>
I wish America would do the same or at least punish journalist & there agencies that promote there views if they are acting in a propagandists manor kinda like Cough 🦊 Cough 🦊 | [
"Just curious, how did the US regulate media during WWII if at all? Obviously the war department was churning out war news and propaganda, but did they censor/restrict any media from being published?",
">\n\nYes, absolutely. They formed the Office of Censorship and heavily regulated the press, especially radio. But it was almost entirely geared towards preventing information on troop movements and weather from getting out, and coded enemy messages from getting in. They didn't force stations to broadcast propaganda or ban negative stories, and most of the restrictions were followed voluntarily.\nThere was also the Office of War Information which was responsible for producing propaganda and rejected film scripts that were critical or negative regarding the war effort - but they did not restrict the press to my knowledge.",
">\n\nSuper interesting! Thanks for sharing. Yes it seems this was a bit more functional about what comes in and out of the country, not necessarily with what’s published domestically as far as swaying public opinion. Also TIL the catch phrase “loose lips sink ships” came from this agency.\nThe voluntary aspect is somewhat enlightening as to how unified the country was in the war effort. The cynic in me makes me even more curious if there was other censorship at play outside of this agency that helped create that sentiment. I feel like someone would have replied about some landmark Supreme Court case by now though if that were the case.",
">\n\nAmerican's have a curious ability to get in line when there is a clear and present danger to the nation. Someone summed it up with \"You can always count on American's to do the right thing when they have no other option.\"",
">\n\nWinston Churchill famously stated “Americans will always do the right thing, only after they have tried everything else.\"\nIs that the quote you are thinking of?",
">\n\nIt was attributed to him, but tracing things down, it was apparent not said by him and I’ve heard both versions.",
">\n\nLawmakers have touted the bill as an effort to bring Ukraine's media laws closer to European Union standards as the country makes a bid to join the 27-member bloc. They have also argued that it will help counter Russian propaganda as Russia's invasion of Ukraine nears its one-year anniversary.\nBut organizations representing journalists say the law will erode press freedoms in Ukraine. Under the law, Ukraine's media regulator could block websites that are not registered with the government as news organizations, The Kyiv Independent reported on Friday. \nThe law is at odds with freedoms given to the press in other parts of Europe, the European Federation of Journalists said in a statement on Friday, according to the Times. \nEdit: because some users argued (with justification) that my post kept specific details hidden, I added the rest of the news post. I also checked the Kyiv Independent and it checks out.",
">\n\nWhile this is true, if I'm not mistaken some EU members have still spoken out against the bill - mainly because the new regulatory body will be led/run by the federal government, whereas in the EU they're generally a separate entity from the government run by civilians\nStill a step in the right direction, but I can see where people worry",
">\n\nHow is censorship a right step in any direction?",
">\n\nIt's indeed a double edged sword. On the one hand self-proclaimed news networks might spread their political agenda or incite illegal behaviour, on the other hand it's a real shortcut to control the media. This needs to be handled very carefully and probably by a body that's not interwoven with the government.",
">\n\nThere are few good options in war, especially a total war where the very survival of a country and ethnolinguistic group is at risk. Zelenskyy is probably going a bit far, but it’s hard to really blame him.",
">\n\nDepends on what the censorship is… trying to dispel discontentment with current ruling party or suppressing enemy state misinformation.",
">\n\nI think it's safe to infer the reasoning is to filter propaganda. I don't think there is much discontent with the current ruling party. Zelensky\"s approval ratings have been through the roof. Although, it's an easy power to abuse in the wrong hands.",
">\n\nI mean, can you think of a single instance in history where censorship was a net societal benefit, rolled back when no longer necessary, and not abused over the long-term? Nothing comes to mind.\nJournalists surely also know this to be the case, hence their outspoken opposition to the measure.",
">\n\nAbraham Lincoln suspending habeas corpus in the civil war is probably the best example for Americans in here. Would it be tolerated during peacetime? hell no. Would it be tolerated when the entire country is at an inflection point like the Ukraine is in 2023 and the US in 1861. Yes.\nedit: left out Abe's last name",
">\n\nWhat's it like to be on a first-name basis with Abraham Lincoln?",
">\n\nIt does make sense to block Russian \"news\" channels but its easily open to abuse",
">\n\nThis. Sounds like the Sedition Act of 1917. Easy to pass during wartime and makes sense, but probably wouldn’t get passed during peacetime. \nIt also doesn’t help that Ukraine was like #31 on the world’s corruption index prior to the war.",
">\n\nI vaguely recall reading that prior to the war Ukraine was the second most corrupt country in Europe, behind Russia.",
">\n\nThat's pretty much why Zelensky won the elections, he ran on an anti-corruption platform and has actually done a lot to combat it",
">\n\nLike what?",
">\n\nno more oligarchs",
">\n\nYou really think he ended the oligarchy? And it will only get 100x worse after the war when western businessmen come in to “fix” the country.",
">\n\nLmao this. We should all remember that he was also named in the Panama papers for holding 20+ million overseas",
">\n\nWhats so weird about successful actor having 20million to their name?",
">\n\nThey’ve been blocking the BBC on and off for years.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest lessons the world will learn from this conflict is that while Ukraine is/are the good guys… they are far, far behind a system that is akin to the western world.\nmy father’s grandfather was from Ukraine.\nAs he likes to say, Ukraine had 30 years to get their shit together so that when this day (02/24/22, Russia’s invasion which was always an inevitability if you know Ukraine, Ukraine’s history and geopolitics) arrived they’d be more than just militarily prepared.\nThey would be a part of NATO.. but Ukraine wanted to dip its toes in both democracy and wide-scale corruption.",
">\n\nFrom what I understand, the oligarchs and who grabbed up all the candy when the USSR piñata ruptured have been a big part of the problem. They have lost a lot of power and wealth, and some experts believe that this could create a political space for serious reform. I sure hope so!",
">\n\nExactly not to mention many oligarchs actually own news outlets and even television stations. I get what they’re trying to do given the war, but they have to be careful with the execution of it because it’s a step away from authoritarian control over news and media. News and media should be free but within limits too. Ex. Carlson tucker on Fox News in the US isn’t exactly unbiased. If there was a Ukrainian counterpart, they’d try to shut it down.",
">\n\nA nation in war time does not have the luxury of entertaining 100% freedom of information, especially considering the constant misinformation campaigns waged by Russia on top of its land war.",
">\n\nShutting on and off news websites? Banning political parties? BAWWW TYRANNY.\n\nPeople should not be naive, Ukraine is at war, the survival of their nation is at stake.",
">\n\nPrecisely, and psyops against Ukraine are extremely active.\nI hope they can reach Western values one day, but this is war against a much bigger Country that does not play fair. \nLet's let Ukraine win this war first and give them some time to rebuild before their culture becomes more Western.",
">\n\nHere in Adelaide, Australia, we did that. In the days before websites so he wasn't blocked, but a certain editor knew he wasn't welcome and had to leave town. He was an awful liar and very divisive. Inherited a newspaper from his dad called 'The News'.\nAfter he left town he started a company named after the Adelaide paper, NewsCorp. Rupert Murdoch was the name he went by (though his first name is really Keith, not Rupert). Wonder whatever happened to him?",
">\n\nHe got mad and decided to ruin the world.",
">\n\n\"I think it's good when we do it\" is a dangerous justification",
">\n\nYes, it is very similar to how the freedom of press declined in Russia. All medias were required to be registered by some governmental department in order to \"control the flow of information from abroad\". In no time it became the instrument of banning unwanted media.\nThough I admit banning Russian state media is for the better. Could they be banned in Russia itself, too?",
">\n\nThe thing is who defines that the media is pro-Russian. While it stays for the Ukrainian government to define, Ukrainian freedom of speech basically is being destroyed.",
">\n\nNot really enough information in the article to make an informed opinion on this.\n \nDecision was made by parliament, Zelenskyy's role in this is to sign the law, much like other world leaders don't necessarily agree with everything they have to sign.\nThe article mentions this is to allow them to ban websites not listed as media, which to me means the ability to ban any website if it isn't a registered media website. So, specifically to not allow them to block news websites so long as they are registered.\nAlso mentions this was to try and bring them more in line with EU countries, while at the same time saying it does the opposite.\n \nDo we have a link to the actual text of the new law?",
">\n\nSlippery slope",
">\n\nMost of the west have already blocked RT for their disinformation.",
">\n\nPrivate companies blocking is one thing, but governments is very different.\nA lot of laws created with \"good intentions\" are very often used for bad things, especially in countries with long history of corruption like Ukraine.",
">\n\nFrance is blocking RT",
">\n\nThese things happen during war, in every country.\nThe real test is seeing what laws will be repealed once this is all over imo.",
">\n\n\nThe real test is seeing what laws will be repealed once this is all over\n\nNone of them will be. Governments never voluntarily surrender any measure of control over the people. That's why the US is still officially in a state of national emergency 22 years after 9/11: so that the government elites can keep using their \"temporary\" emergency powers.",
">\n\nThe exact opposite has been happening in a lot of cases. The war has been used as an excuse to carry out a lot of deregulation and liberalization",
">\n\nLike when they banned left wing opposition parties?",
">\n\nArticle says websites not registered as media could be blocked. Kind of the opposite of what the headline says...",
">\n\nGovernments never relinquish power once they have it. Look at how the patriot act went from protecting our country to taking our rights. This is not a slippery slope. This is what corruption looks like. I really want Ukraine to succeed but decisions like this gives me trepidation.",
">\n\nRussia China bans websites \"fascists, ugly despots, violating human rights\" \nsomeone else does it \"understandable, well within their rights, good step\"\nAn accurate portrayal of exceptionalism",
">\n\nPeople have a hard time applying the same logic to things they like.",
">\n\nCool, there is certainly zero propaganda coming out Ukraine, for sure.",
">\n\nHa!",
">\n\nThat sounds like a healthy and not at all a government propaganda machine.",
">\n\nIt’s their country, let ‘em do as they choose. I can understand it during wartime, but in peacetime it sounds like one of those slippery slopes….",
">\n\nConsidering that before the war started everyone was talking about how corrupt the Ukraine government was I'd expect this to be abused for the duration of the war and after.",
">\n\nWestern media can be just as bad at spouting Russian propaganda. It seems like the editors have no ability to disseminate when I see headlines on APNews/Reuters weekly about how \"Putin is ready to negotiate but Ukraine refuses\".",
">\n\nI mean, this Business Insider article is a pretty fantastic case in point:\nare there reasonable concerns about this law? Yup.\nAre there extremely good reasons to pass it regardless, in a state of war against an adversary which thrives off propaganda? Also yes.\nWill Business Insider try and \"both sides\" this to get the \"BWUH 1984\" crowd arguing about their article? Final yes.",
">\n\nWell, Ukraine has never been the democratic heaven that the west is portraying it as in order to feed the propaganda. It's the most corrupt country in Europe and political opposition prior to the invasion was also suppressed.\nOne of Elensky's opposition leaders was in house arrest, although I can't remember his name. I think he escaped after the war started.",
">\n\nFreedom Fighter bans Dissent",
">\n\nThis is never good",
">\n\nYou either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.\n… Or maybe it’s to block Russian propaganda; idk",
">\n\nGovernment controlled media… if anyone thinks this is a good idea then you’re wrong",
">\n\nWhen has censorship ever been on the right side of history?",
">\n\nLincoln infamously censored free speech and the press during the American civil war, and often arrested (without due process!) anyone publishing media opposing the draft or expressing sympathy for the south",
">\n\n\"don't listen to that propaganda, listen to this propaganda\"",
">\n\nAnd so it begins.",
">\n\nI wonder how many pro-working class news outlets will suddenly be removed because they’re critical of Ukraine’s bourgeois government.",
">\n\nThe west is gonna act shocked when this war is over and it turns out Ukraine is still a corrupt place, but saying that makes me pro Russian or some shit",
">\n\nWhat irks me is them saying that being in the EU will supposedly make things better…",
">\n\nAs a country at war, censorship is not surprising. What will be telling is how they behave once the war is over.",
">\n\nSomething a totally not fascist would do, right?",
">\n\nwhen news reporting is killing your soldiers",
">\n\nHe already banned opposing political parties. What’s next?",
">\n\nThey also banned Russian and Rusyn languages schools. Its an ethnostate, simple as.",
">\n\nWar tends to be bad for freedom of speech. The Ukrainian people have a right to hear what pro-Russian media is saying.",
">\n\nAnd yet people claim that this guy is the savior of democracy? Aahahahahah, m'kay.",
">\n\nHonestly this isn't news. Countries are well known for curtailing news reporting during wartime. The US and UK did it during WW2. You don't want news media reporting the location of your troops or movements. \nThe test to democracy isn't what's passed during wartime, it's what's rescinded when war is over. When Ukraine eventually wins, the question will be how well do they transition to functioning, minimally corrupt transparent democracy. Will Zelensky and his successors freely give up power? Will the people elect fascist white nationalists who contributed to the war effort? The future remains to be seen. Well intentions can easily be lead astray.",
">\n\n“Could” is probably doing a lot of work here.",
">\n\nThe problem with that is that it shouldn’t. Laws need to be scoped heavily, or they will be rife with abuse.",
">\n\nSo censorship is suddenly ok because someone that’s not Russia did it.",
">\n\nThe headline sounds terrible. However reading helps add sense to it. \nBut I can't help to wonder whether blocking news websites due to \"weaponized media\" is a good thing or bad thing. I feel there's a gray line here that could be getting crossed and one has to question \"Is this propaganda that's being blocked, or is this our country censoring media brainwashing us in an attempt to strengthen their resolve?\" \nI'm all for Ukraine in this war, but in terms of a country censoring media, it's well.... a sticky subject. What action is the correct action when your enemies are using it as a weapon to confuse the public opinion?",
">\n\nI have no problem with this, RT is blocked in my country and Europe",
">\n\nafaik this is just ukraine setting up a media regulator along EU directives - all countries must have these mechanisms.",
">\n\nEU directives aren’t regulated by the government. Ukraine’s will be",
">\n\nDuring war time, I think that's fine. It's important to minimize Russian propaganda and to make sure no military information gets leaked.",
">\n\nIf the independent regulator can't be trusted during war time, why can it be trusted during peace time?",
">\n\nTo be very clear, this is many steps too far for peacetime and this bill isn't limited to wartime.\nI'm not Ukrainian and not an expert on the bill by any means but placing this under the same umbrella as the ~~federal~~ national government is dangerous and exposes the country to big problems down the road.\nI could defend it if the bill explicitly was for wartime. And many bills have expiration dates. But this is not good.",
">\n\nBut I thought he was about democracy?",
">\n\nGood if it's for the russian news websites only!\nNow, how about Ukraine's president fix that law forbidding romanian language to be taught to the romanian minority in Ukraine?\nAr we good neighbors respecting each other or are we not?",
">\n\nFinally someone who understands what is going on here.",
">\n\nGenius",
">\n\nAuto correct typo in my first post! Fixed.\nNot at all supporting suppression of dissent, but there has to be some way to block intentionally slander and misinformation, the hawking of all out lies through garbage like Alex Jones from bending the public discourse, and causing serious social harm. \nParading conspiracy theories or promoting propaganda created by the FSB to destabilize democracy isn't journalism, and isn't news. Legit journalism runs on facts and as such self corrects as better information comes to light. Propaganda either points to a new distraction or digs deeper into a lie, as do its adherents.",
">\n\nNo idea what people are complaining about. Ukraine had pro-Russian politicians in the parliament, russian fake news and pro-russian KGB \"church\" freely acting in Ukraine for years right before the invasion. The real question is why the didn't shut down them long before.",
">\n\nThe Smith act of 1940 comes to mind.\nUkraine is under threat of genocide. Let's see what happens after they win.",
">\n\nWe need to close/block russian or pro-russian websites.",
">\n\nOh no!",
">\n\nI just know its going to be a dark day if news reporters/programs are no longer allowed to make up news and are required to tell the entire story about something. \nSadly if you take away the freedom to blabber from a roof top, you also take away freedom of press",
">\n\nWhy not, news websites are a weapon and can be used by either side.",
">\n\nHmmmm. Interesting",
">\n\nThe beginning of the end",
">\n\nSuch a fascist",
">\n\nChurches next?",
">\n\nAlready",
">\n\nIt's very reasonable to find this offputting, but a ton of westerners are showing their chauvinism in this thread. Acting like any/every NATO country hasn't/wouldn't do this in times of war or great conflict is just asinine, governments pretty much everywhere will regulate whose propaganda is legal and whose isn't. Not saying it's always justified, but many westerners are acting like their shit don't stink.",
">\n\nBaltics and lot of EU countries have banned russian propoganda chanels. I agree with this. Russian propoganda is no joke and i would not recomend it for uninitiated.",
">\n\nThey didn’t ban Russian propaganda channels. Law allows government to block any news website they feel necessary. Given the track record of corruption in Ukrainian governance, this can’t be good.\nEdit: grammar",
">\n\nHaving a standard of what qualifies as news while engaged in a propaganda attack from a country several times your size if propferly monitored information through a board and independent laws could be a net positive\nI’m the USA the repeal of the fairness doctorine is often sited as a reason the news ended up with broadcasters telling people not to take a vaccine during a pandemic",
">\n\nWonder if Zelenskky will be Ukraine's ~~Dictator~~ President in 10 years time.",
">\n\nGet your popcorn while redditors try to tell you why this is a good thing and Zelensky can do no wrong",
">\n\nYikes",
">\n\nUkraine was corrupt as all hell before Russia invaded, and continue corrupt and not worthy of trust. Just because they're fighting for their sovereignty against Putin's evil ass doesn't mean they get a blank check to do whatever the fuck they want and pass it off as correct or for some greater good. This is authoritarian bullshit, nothing else.",
">\n\nIt's quite interesting to see the Zelensky fan boys doing their mental gymnastics to defend this policy. Having a government control what you can see is not good at all: it's a tactic thar has been used by most of the worst rulers in history: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.",
">\n\nI can understand why but honestly I think it’s a very slippery slope that most humans aren’t able to handle. Where’s the line at what is ok and what isn’t. A human decides that and humans are fallible.",
">\n\nThey were right to question this move. I hope the good President/Warrior isn't losing his head. This war is insane.",
">\n\nOne the one hand not too good depending on Implementation. One the other hand the legal framework to go against russian propaganda, misinformation and other Media based attenpts against ukraine.",
">\n\nThere is a lot of anti-Ukraine posts on OP’s profile, take this news with a grain of salt",
">\n\nThe UK blocked Russia Today and Sputnik from UK Satellites to stop their propoganda. It's a sensible thing to do in times of conflict.. we did the same to Nazi Germany also.",
">\n\nI think I just lost all respect for this guy",
">\n\nSecond most corrupt country in Europe (after Russia)... What else do you expect.",
">\n\nTough to balance government overreach against foreign interference.",
">\n\nThat's not good.",
">\n\nDon't pull a \"Russia\" bro. Wrong path to be taking.",
">\n\nYou do realize Russian propaganda channels are there and available to zombify people?\nI have spent so much of my personal time to report Youtube Channel24 videos and you have to show in each video where there is an explicit piece where there was a terrorist speech, it is tedious !! Also, noone seem to read an article cause the content is not like that at all",
">\n\nFor some people (especially here on reddit lmao) russian propaganda is any piece of informations you disagree with, and anyone saying it is either a bot or russian troll",
">\n\nRemember when the Russians invaded claiming there were Nazis in Ukraine?\nPepperidge Farms remembers.",
">\n\nPutin is not the good guy, but this doesn't mean Zelensky and the Ukranian government are a bunch of angels.",
">\n\nHe has cracked down on unions too.",
">\n\nDuring the civil war Lincoln has confederate sympathizing reports thrown in jail without trial. \nThis is not new",
">\n\nSomething seriously off with this man,",
">\n\nI’m sure when peace arrives, and one day Zelenskyy is replaced by a nefarious leader this law will also be remove right? Right?",
">\n\nLol watching this happen in slow motion while supposed lovers of freedom and the Ukrainian people just worship this man, who is an actor and he’s just gradually changing his role.",
">\n\nFreedom of speech? Hahaha, this is no better than Russia or China.",
">\n\nWhat a fucking dishonest headline. Shame on this publisher.",
">\n\nThis is a heck of a misleading headline, the law outlines blatant Russian propaganda sites as the issue. This is almost as bad as the reporting of them “banning orthodox religion” no they banned the orthodox Russian church, that church was using their religion as a cover to transport information back to Russia.",
">\n\nBad idea.",
">\n\nRussian propaganda is no joke and Ukraine probably needs the ability to block it. It's a shame this wasn't passed as wartime emergency legislation with an automatic repeal date though.",
">\n\nNothing to see here, just the good guys fighting against evil Russia 😅",
">\n\nAnd down the slippery slope we continue to slide.",
">\n\nHalf the problem with war now is the media giving g the game away ... there should 100% be restrictions on what the media can post during war time",
">\n\nWell, this headline is awful. First of all we already have such thing since 2015 I believe (one of popular examples is \"vk\" website), secondly - it's just EU standards. \nBtw we still don't have \"war censorship\", you can critisize government all you want.",
">\n\nImagine defending media censorship. China must be proud",
">\n\nRussia does exactly the same thing blocking websites that they consider to be spreading misinformation. And this is obviously bad.\nYet, the amount of double standards in this thread with people thinking that \"it's fine when Ukraine does it\" is absurd.\nBefore the war Ukraine was always on the top positions of most corrupt countries in Europe. This law WILL be abused.",
">\n\nRemember when he said he wanted to run his country more like a democracy…yeah, he just wants those dollars from the U.S",
">\n\nYup this is not the right way to do stuff... If you really wanna show that you are cleaning up the corruptness in your country then don't start making laws like this shit.",
">\n\nVery freedom loving and democratic",
">\n\nNothing says countering russian propaganda like censorship and more propaganda 👍",
">\n\nWatch Ukraine turn into a brutal dictatorship lead by the dancing with the stars jokey guy.",
">\n\nIts the same laws that govern the EU.",
">\n\nWell the corruption continues. “I think it’s good when we do it” Is not a good justification.",
">\n\nDictator for life",
">\n\nIt should only be valid as long as the war against Russia.",
">\n\nRussian \"new\" Websites, which actually are just propaganda machineries, should ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE be blocked.",
">\n\nUkraine has its own propaganda too.",
">\n\nName one nation in a conflict that doesn't censor and put out nationalistic/propaganda. Edited to clarify.",
">\n\nExactly man, that is why I'm saying that censoring is not the right call. Once the government censors you from reading international media, you are influenced by your own government and you know and think only what they want you to know and think. Having trust in your own government is ok but trusting it blindly is not. It makes you easily influenced by your own government,a puppet and as you said, every nation in conflict is making propaganda.",
">\n\nNo different than really any other country that has been in a total war. I just hope that's it's a temporary war measure, which I'm not sure it is.",
">\n\nTotally normal behavior",
">\n\nSounds like news sensorship to me..",
">\n\nHope rises. Discontent rises slightly.\nBeware of the poet's suicide.\nP.s. This is a game reference",
">\n\n1000% normal in war times. Many countries have done this before. It's impossible for Ukraine not to do this given how much Russia is investing into disinformation. Literally having speaker cars driving through the streets with propaganda 24/7. Broadcasting fake news into Ukraine through all mediums. If they get to a large group of people in the US imagine the amount of people they can influence when it comes to their neighbors.\nThe only way they can get Ukraine to lose the war is to break the people's will to fight and they're doing this by not only bombing schools, playgrounds, hospitals and powerplants to freeze them to death but also spreading propaganda to make the people second guess their leadership",
">\n\nCountries do this all the time. Even the US.\nStop trying to vilify Ukraine to appease that shit cabbage Putin. Russia invaded them, not the other way around.",
">\n\nI love watching people try to balance not being called out on ignoring Ukraine's pre-existing corruption and keeping the \"Ukraine = unquestionable good guys\" narrative.\nThere's nothing that says war HAS to be \"good guys vs bad guys\".",
">\n\nPeople have every right to complain about this. But remember Ukraine is fighting in the fields for their very existence.",
">\n\nZelensky understands Democracy more than people think. He's most likely changing it now because of the WAR so that not much information gets back to the enemy.. Remember when Ukraine did both big successful offensives they had a Media Blackout.",
">\n\nOnly state-approved propaganda is authorized",
">\n\nPeople are dumbasses in this thread, and have no idea how propaganda, and filtering media works. There's a reason why propaganda is dangerous, and there are reasons why it's blocked.\nNarrow minded AF.",
">\n\nIn war, certain civil liberties are curtailed. It is this way, it’s always been this way, and it will always be this way. War is not a game. It’s not good that this happens, of course, but it’s one of the many reasons war is bad.",
">\n\nThis definitely isn't suspicious at all",
">\n\nIt’s a standard phenomenon at war time.",
">\n\nOf course he did",
">\n\nWeeeird. Can’t wait to read all the comments somehow blaming this on Russia.",
">\n\nDoesn't sound very Democratic to me, Bob"
] |
>
I get why they would want some censorship after the media leaked their military strategy, but I think it should be very limited | [
"Just curious, how did the US regulate media during WWII if at all? Obviously the war department was churning out war news and propaganda, but did they censor/restrict any media from being published?",
">\n\nYes, absolutely. They formed the Office of Censorship and heavily regulated the press, especially radio. But it was almost entirely geared towards preventing information on troop movements and weather from getting out, and coded enemy messages from getting in. They didn't force stations to broadcast propaganda or ban negative stories, and most of the restrictions were followed voluntarily.\nThere was also the Office of War Information which was responsible for producing propaganda and rejected film scripts that were critical or negative regarding the war effort - but they did not restrict the press to my knowledge.",
">\n\nSuper interesting! Thanks for sharing. Yes it seems this was a bit more functional about what comes in and out of the country, not necessarily with what’s published domestically as far as swaying public opinion. Also TIL the catch phrase “loose lips sink ships” came from this agency.\nThe voluntary aspect is somewhat enlightening as to how unified the country was in the war effort. The cynic in me makes me even more curious if there was other censorship at play outside of this agency that helped create that sentiment. I feel like someone would have replied about some landmark Supreme Court case by now though if that were the case.",
">\n\nAmerican's have a curious ability to get in line when there is a clear and present danger to the nation. Someone summed it up with \"You can always count on American's to do the right thing when they have no other option.\"",
">\n\nWinston Churchill famously stated “Americans will always do the right thing, only after they have tried everything else.\"\nIs that the quote you are thinking of?",
">\n\nIt was attributed to him, but tracing things down, it was apparent not said by him and I’ve heard both versions.",
">\n\nLawmakers have touted the bill as an effort to bring Ukraine's media laws closer to European Union standards as the country makes a bid to join the 27-member bloc. They have also argued that it will help counter Russian propaganda as Russia's invasion of Ukraine nears its one-year anniversary.\nBut organizations representing journalists say the law will erode press freedoms in Ukraine. Under the law, Ukraine's media regulator could block websites that are not registered with the government as news organizations, The Kyiv Independent reported on Friday. \nThe law is at odds with freedoms given to the press in other parts of Europe, the European Federation of Journalists said in a statement on Friday, according to the Times. \nEdit: because some users argued (with justification) that my post kept specific details hidden, I added the rest of the news post. I also checked the Kyiv Independent and it checks out.",
">\n\nWhile this is true, if I'm not mistaken some EU members have still spoken out against the bill - mainly because the new regulatory body will be led/run by the federal government, whereas in the EU they're generally a separate entity from the government run by civilians\nStill a step in the right direction, but I can see where people worry",
">\n\nHow is censorship a right step in any direction?",
">\n\nIt's indeed a double edged sword. On the one hand self-proclaimed news networks might spread their political agenda or incite illegal behaviour, on the other hand it's a real shortcut to control the media. This needs to be handled very carefully and probably by a body that's not interwoven with the government.",
">\n\nThere are few good options in war, especially a total war where the very survival of a country and ethnolinguistic group is at risk. Zelenskyy is probably going a bit far, but it’s hard to really blame him.",
">\n\nDepends on what the censorship is… trying to dispel discontentment with current ruling party or suppressing enemy state misinformation.",
">\n\nI think it's safe to infer the reasoning is to filter propaganda. I don't think there is much discontent with the current ruling party. Zelensky\"s approval ratings have been through the roof. Although, it's an easy power to abuse in the wrong hands.",
">\n\nI mean, can you think of a single instance in history where censorship was a net societal benefit, rolled back when no longer necessary, and not abused over the long-term? Nothing comes to mind.\nJournalists surely also know this to be the case, hence their outspoken opposition to the measure.",
">\n\nAbraham Lincoln suspending habeas corpus in the civil war is probably the best example for Americans in here. Would it be tolerated during peacetime? hell no. Would it be tolerated when the entire country is at an inflection point like the Ukraine is in 2023 and the US in 1861. Yes.\nedit: left out Abe's last name",
">\n\nWhat's it like to be on a first-name basis with Abraham Lincoln?",
">\n\nIt does make sense to block Russian \"news\" channels but its easily open to abuse",
">\n\nThis. Sounds like the Sedition Act of 1917. Easy to pass during wartime and makes sense, but probably wouldn’t get passed during peacetime. \nIt also doesn’t help that Ukraine was like #31 on the world’s corruption index prior to the war.",
">\n\nI vaguely recall reading that prior to the war Ukraine was the second most corrupt country in Europe, behind Russia.",
">\n\nThat's pretty much why Zelensky won the elections, he ran on an anti-corruption platform and has actually done a lot to combat it",
">\n\nLike what?",
">\n\nno more oligarchs",
">\n\nYou really think he ended the oligarchy? And it will only get 100x worse after the war when western businessmen come in to “fix” the country.",
">\n\nLmao this. We should all remember that he was also named in the Panama papers for holding 20+ million overseas",
">\n\nWhats so weird about successful actor having 20million to their name?",
">\n\nThey’ve been blocking the BBC on and off for years.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest lessons the world will learn from this conflict is that while Ukraine is/are the good guys… they are far, far behind a system that is akin to the western world.\nmy father’s grandfather was from Ukraine.\nAs he likes to say, Ukraine had 30 years to get their shit together so that when this day (02/24/22, Russia’s invasion which was always an inevitability if you know Ukraine, Ukraine’s history and geopolitics) arrived they’d be more than just militarily prepared.\nThey would be a part of NATO.. but Ukraine wanted to dip its toes in both democracy and wide-scale corruption.",
">\n\nFrom what I understand, the oligarchs and who grabbed up all the candy when the USSR piñata ruptured have been a big part of the problem. They have lost a lot of power and wealth, and some experts believe that this could create a political space for serious reform. I sure hope so!",
">\n\nExactly not to mention many oligarchs actually own news outlets and even television stations. I get what they’re trying to do given the war, but they have to be careful with the execution of it because it’s a step away from authoritarian control over news and media. News and media should be free but within limits too. Ex. Carlson tucker on Fox News in the US isn’t exactly unbiased. If there was a Ukrainian counterpart, they’d try to shut it down.",
">\n\nA nation in war time does not have the luxury of entertaining 100% freedom of information, especially considering the constant misinformation campaigns waged by Russia on top of its land war.",
">\n\nShutting on and off news websites? Banning political parties? BAWWW TYRANNY.\n\nPeople should not be naive, Ukraine is at war, the survival of their nation is at stake.",
">\n\nPrecisely, and psyops against Ukraine are extremely active.\nI hope they can reach Western values one day, but this is war against a much bigger Country that does not play fair. \nLet's let Ukraine win this war first and give them some time to rebuild before their culture becomes more Western.",
">\n\nHere in Adelaide, Australia, we did that. In the days before websites so he wasn't blocked, but a certain editor knew he wasn't welcome and had to leave town. He was an awful liar and very divisive. Inherited a newspaper from his dad called 'The News'.\nAfter he left town he started a company named after the Adelaide paper, NewsCorp. Rupert Murdoch was the name he went by (though his first name is really Keith, not Rupert). Wonder whatever happened to him?",
">\n\nHe got mad and decided to ruin the world.",
">\n\n\"I think it's good when we do it\" is a dangerous justification",
">\n\nYes, it is very similar to how the freedom of press declined in Russia. All medias were required to be registered by some governmental department in order to \"control the flow of information from abroad\". In no time it became the instrument of banning unwanted media.\nThough I admit banning Russian state media is for the better. Could they be banned in Russia itself, too?",
">\n\nThe thing is who defines that the media is pro-Russian. While it stays for the Ukrainian government to define, Ukrainian freedom of speech basically is being destroyed.",
">\n\nNot really enough information in the article to make an informed opinion on this.\n \nDecision was made by parliament, Zelenskyy's role in this is to sign the law, much like other world leaders don't necessarily agree with everything they have to sign.\nThe article mentions this is to allow them to ban websites not listed as media, which to me means the ability to ban any website if it isn't a registered media website. So, specifically to not allow them to block news websites so long as they are registered.\nAlso mentions this was to try and bring them more in line with EU countries, while at the same time saying it does the opposite.\n \nDo we have a link to the actual text of the new law?",
">\n\nSlippery slope",
">\n\nMost of the west have already blocked RT for their disinformation.",
">\n\nPrivate companies blocking is one thing, but governments is very different.\nA lot of laws created with \"good intentions\" are very often used for bad things, especially in countries with long history of corruption like Ukraine.",
">\n\nFrance is blocking RT",
">\n\nThese things happen during war, in every country.\nThe real test is seeing what laws will be repealed once this is all over imo.",
">\n\n\nThe real test is seeing what laws will be repealed once this is all over\n\nNone of them will be. Governments never voluntarily surrender any measure of control over the people. That's why the US is still officially in a state of national emergency 22 years after 9/11: so that the government elites can keep using their \"temporary\" emergency powers.",
">\n\nThe exact opposite has been happening in a lot of cases. The war has been used as an excuse to carry out a lot of deregulation and liberalization",
">\n\nLike when they banned left wing opposition parties?",
">\n\nArticle says websites not registered as media could be blocked. Kind of the opposite of what the headline says...",
">\n\nGovernments never relinquish power once they have it. Look at how the patriot act went from protecting our country to taking our rights. This is not a slippery slope. This is what corruption looks like. I really want Ukraine to succeed but decisions like this gives me trepidation.",
">\n\nRussia China bans websites \"fascists, ugly despots, violating human rights\" \nsomeone else does it \"understandable, well within their rights, good step\"\nAn accurate portrayal of exceptionalism",
">\n\nPeople have a hard time applying the same logic to things they like.",
">\n\nCool, there is certainly zero propaganda coming out Ukraine, for sure.",
">\n\nHa!",
">\n\nThat sounds like a healthy and not at all a government propaganda machine.",
">\n\nIt’s their country, let ‘em do as they choose. I can understand it during wartime, but in peacetime it sounds like one of those slippery slopes….",
">\n\nConsidering that before the war started everyone was talking about how corrupt the Ukraine government was I'd expect this to be abused for the duration of the war and after.",
">\n\nWestern media can be just as bad at spouting Russian propaganda. It seems like the editors have no ability to disseminate when I see headlines on APNews/Reuters weekly about how \"Putin is ready to negotiate but Ukraine refuses\".",
">\n\nI mean, this Business Insider article is a pretty fantastic case in point:\nare there reasonable concerns about this law? Yup.\nAre there extremely good reasons to pass it regardless, in a state of war against an adversary which thrives off propaganda? Also yes.\nWill Business Insider try and \"both sides\" this to get the \"BWUH 1984\" crowd arguing about their article? Final yes.",
">\n\nWell, Ukraine has never been the democratic heaven that the west is portraying it as in order to feed the propaganda. It's the most corrupt country in Europe and political opposition prior to the invasion was also suppressed.\nOne of Elensky's opposition leaders was in house arrest, although I can't remember his name. I think he escaped after the war started.",
">\n\nFreedom Fighter bans Dissent",
">\n\nThis is never good",
">\n\nYou either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.\n… Or maybe it’s to block Russian propaganda; idk",
">\n\nGovernment controlled media… if anyone thinks this is a good idea then you’re wrong",
">\n\nWhen has censorship ever been on the right side of history?",
">\n\nLincoln infamously censored free speech and the press during the American civil war, and often arrested (without due process!) anyone publishing media opposing the draft or expressing sympathy for the south",
">\n\n\"don't listen to that propaganda, listen to this propaganda\"",
">\n\nAnd so it begins.",
">\n\nI wonder how many pro-working class news outlets will suddenly be removed because they’re critical of Ukraine’s bourgeois government.",
">\n\nThe west is gonna act shocked when this war is over and it turns out Ukraine is still a corrupt place, but saying that makes me pro Russian or some shit",
">\n\nWhat irks me is them saying that being in the EU will supposedly make things better…",
">\n\nAs a country at war, censorship is not surprising. What will be telling is how they behave once the war is over.",
">\n\nSomething a totally not fascist would do, right?",
">\n\nwhen news reporting is killing your soldiers",
">\n\nHe already banned opposing political parties. What’s next?",
">\n\nThey also banned Russian and Rusyn languages schools. Its an ethnostate, simple as.",
">\n\nWar tends to be bad for freedom of speech. The Ukrainian people have a right to hear what pro-Russian media is saying.",
">\n\nAnd yet people claim that this guy is the savior of democracy? Aahahahahah, m'kay.",
">\n\nHonestly this isn't news. Countries are well known for curtailing news reporting during wartime. The US and UK did it during WW2. You don't want news media reporting the location of your troops or movements. \nThe test to democracy isn't what's passed during wartime, it's what's rescinded when war is over. When Ukraine eventually wins, the question will be how well do they transition to functioning, minimally corrupt transparent democracy. Will Zelensky and his successors freely give up power? Will the people elect fascist white nationalists who contributed to the war effort? The future remains to be seen. Well intentions can easily be lead astray.",
">\n\n“Could” is probably doing a lot of work here.",
">\n\nThe problem with that is that it shouldn’t. Laws need to be scoped heavily, or they will be rife with abuse.",
">\n\nSo censorship is suddenly ok because someone that’s not Russia did it.",
">\n\nThe headline sounds terrible. However reading helps add sense to it. \nBut I can't help to wonder whether blocking news websites due to \"weaponized media\" is a good thing or bad thing. I feel there's a gray line here that could be getting crossed and one has to question \"Is this propaganda that's being blocked, or is this our country censoring media brainwashing us in an attempt to strengthen their resolve?\" \nI'm all for Ukraine in this war, but in terms of a country censoring media, it's well.... a sticky subject. What action is the correct action when your enemies are using it as a weapon to confuse the public opinion?",
">\n\nI have no problem with this, RT is blocked in my country and Europe",
">\n\nafaik this is just ukraine setting up a media regulator along EU directives - all countries must have these mechanisms.",
">\n\nEU directives aren’t regulated by the government. Ukraine’s will be",
">\n\nDuring war time, I think that's fine. It's important to minimize Russian propaganda and to make sure no military information gets leaked.",
">\n\nIf the independent regulator can't be trusted during war time, why can it be trusted during peace time?",
">\n\nTo be very clear, this is many steps too far for peacetime and this bill isn't limited to wartime.\nI'm not Ukrainian and not an expert on the bill by any means but placing this under the same umbrella as the ~~federal~~ national government is dangerous and exposes the country to big problems down the road.\nI could defend it if the bill explicitly was for wartime. And many bills have expiration dates. But this is not good.",
">\n\nBut I thought he was about democracy?",
">\n\nGood if it's for the russian news websites only!\nNow, how about Ukraine's president fix that law forbidding romanian language to be taught to the romanian minority in Ukraine?\nAr we good neighbors respecting each other or are we not?",
">\n\nFinally someone who understands what is going on here.",
">\n\nGenius",
">\n\nAuto correct typo in my first post! Fixed.\nNot at all supporting suppression of dissent, but there has to be some way to block intentionally slander and misinformation, the hawking of all out lies through garbage like Alex Jones from bending the public discourse, and causing serious social harm. \nParading conspiracy theories or promoting propaganda created by the FSB to destabilize democracy isn't journalism, and isn't news. Legit journalism runs on facts and as such self corrects as better information comes to light. Propaganda either points to a new distraction or digs deeper into a lie, as do its adherents.",
">\n\nNo idea what people are complaining about. Ukraine had pro-Russian politicians in the parliament, russian fake news and pro-russian KGB \"church\" freely acting in Ukraine for years right before the invasion. The real question is why the didn't shut down them long before.",
">\n\nThe Smith act of 1940 comes to mind.\nUkraine is under threat of genocide. Let's see what happens after they win.",
">\n\nWe need to close/block russian or pro-russian websites.",
">\n\nOh no!",
">\n\nI just know its going to be a dark day if news reporters/programs are no longer allowed to make up news and are required to tell the entire story about something. \nSadly if you take away the freedom to blabber from a roof top, you also take away freedom of press",
">\n\nWhy not, news websites are a weapon and can be used by either side.",
">\n\nHmmmm. Interesting",
">\n\nThe beginning of the end",
">\n\nSuch a fascist",
">\n\nChurches next?",
">\n\nAlready",
">\n\nIt's very reasonable to find this offputting, but a ton of westerners are showing their chauvinism in this thread. Acting like any/every NATO country hasn't/wouldn't do this in times of war or great conflict is just asinine, governments pretty much everywhere will regulate whose propaganda is legal and whose isn't. Not saying it's always justified, but many westerners are acting like their shit don't stink.",
">\n\nBaltics and lot of EU countries have banned russian propoganda chanels. I agree with this. Russian propoganda is no joke and i would not recomend it for uninitiated.",
">\n\nThey didn’t ban Russian propaganda channels. Law allows government to block any news website they feel necessary. Given the track record of corruption in Ukrainian governance, this can’t be good.\nEdit: grammar",
">\n\nHaving a standard of what qualifies as news while engaged in a propaganda attack from a country several times your size if propferly monitored information through a board and independent laws could be a net positive\nI’m the USA the repeal of the fairness doctorine is often sited as a reason the news ended up with broadcasters telling people not to take a vaccine during a pandemic",
">\n\nWonder if Zelenskky will be Ukraine's ~~Dictator~~ President in 10 years time.",
">\n\nGet your popcorn while redditors try to tell you why this is a good thing and Zelensky can do no wrong",
">\n\nYikes",
">\n\nUkraine was corrupt as all hell before Russia invaded, and continue corrupt and not worthy of trust. Just because they're fighting for their sovereignty against Putin's evil ass doesn't mean they get a blank check to do whatever the fuck they want and pass it off as correct or for some greater good. This is authoritarian bullshit, nothing else.",
">\n\nIt's quite interesting to see the Zelensky fan boys doing their mental gymnastics to defend this policy. Having a government control what you can see is not good at all: it's a tactic thar has been used by most of the worst rulers in history: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.",
">\n\nI can understand why but honestly I think it’s a very slippery slope that most humans aren’t able to handle. Where’s the line at what is ok and what isn’t. A human decides that and humans are fallible.",
">\n\nThey were right to question this move. I hope the good President/Warrior isn't losing his head. This war is insane.",
">\n\nOne the one hand not too good depending on Implementation. One the other hand the legal framework to go against russian propaganda, misinformation and other Media based attenpts against ukraine.",
">\n\nThere is a lot of anti-Ukraine posts on OP’s profile, take this news with a grain of salt",
">\n\nThe UK blocked Russia Today and Sputnik from UK Satellites to stop their propoganda. It's a sensible thing to do in times of conflict.. we did the same to Nazi Germany also.",
">\n\nI think I just lost all respect for this guy",
">\n\nSecond most corrupt country in Europe (after Russia)... What else do you expect.",
">\n\nTough to balance government overreach against foreign interference.",
">\n\nThat's not good.",
">\n\nDon't pull a \"Russia\" bro. Wrong path to be taking.",
">\n\nYou do realize Russian propaganda channels are there and available to zombify people?\nI have spent so much of my personal time to report Youtube Channel24 videos and you have to show in each video where there is an explicit piece where there was a terrorist speech, it is tedious !! Also, noone seem to read an article cause the content is not like that at all",
">\n\nFor some people (especially here on reddit lmao) russian propaganda is any piece of informations you disagree with, and anyone saying it is either a bot or russian troll",
">\n\nRemember when the Russians invaded claiming there were Nazis in Ukraine?\nPepperidge Farms remembers.",
">\n\nPutin is not the good guy, but this doesn't mean Zelensky and the Ukranian government are a bunch of angels.",
">\n\nHe has cracked down on unions too.",
">\n\nDuring the civil war Lincoln has confederate sympathizing reports thrown in jail without trial. \nThis is not new",
">\n\nSomething seriously off with this man,",
">\n\nI’m sure when peace arrives, and one day Zelenskyy is replaced by a nefarious leader this law will also be remove right? Right?",
">\n\nLol watching this happen in slow motion while supposed lovers of freedom and the Ukrainian people just worship this man, who is an actor and he’s just gradually changing his role.",
">\n\nFreedom of speech? Hahaha, this is no better than Russia or China.",
">\n\nWhat a fucking dishonest headline. Shame on this publisher.",
">\n\nThis is a heck of a misleading headline, the law outlines blatant Russian propaganda sites as the issue. This is almost as bad as the reporting of them “banning orthodox religion” no they banned the orthodox Russian church, that church was using their religion as a cover to transport information back to Russia.",
">\n\nBad idea.",
">\n\nRussian propaganda is no joke and Ukraine probably needs the ability to block it. It's a shame this wasn't passed as wartime emergency legislation with an automatic repeal date though.",
">\n\nNothing to see here, just the good guys fighting against evil Russia 😅",
">\n\nAnd down the slippery slope we continue to slide.",
">\n\nHalf the problem with war now is the media giving g the game away ... there should 100% be restrictions on what the media can post during war time",
">\n\nWell, this headline is awful. First of all we already have such thing since 2015 I believe (one of popular examples is \"vk\" website), secondly - it's just EU standards. \nBtw we still don't have \"war censorship\", you can critisize government all you want.",
">\n\nImagine defending media censorship. China must be proud",
">\n\nRussia does exactly the same thing blocking websites that they consider to be spreading misinformation. And this is obviously bad.\nYet, the amount of double standards in this thread with people thinking that \"it's fine when Ukraine does it\" is absurd.\nBefore the war Ukraine was always on the top positions of most corrupt countries in Europe. This law WILL be abused.",
">\n\nRemember when he said he wanted to run his country more like a democracy…yeah, he just wants those dollars from the U.S",
">\n\nYup this is not the right way to do stuff... If you really wanna show that you are cleaning up the corruptness in your country then don't start making laws like this shit.",
">\n\nVery freedom loving and democratic",
">\n\nNothing says countering russian propaganda like censorship and more propaganda 👍",
">\n\nWatch Ukraine turn into a brutal dictatorship lead by the dancing with the stars jokey guy.",
">\n\nIts the same laws that govern the EU.",
">\n\nWell the corruption continues. “I think it’s good when we do it” Is not a good justification.",
">\n\nDictator for life",
">\n\nIt should only be valid as long as the war against Russia.",
">\n\nRussian \"new\" Websites, which actually are just propaganda machineries, should ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE be blocked.",
">\n\nUkraine has its own propaganda too.",
">\n\nName one nation in a conflict that doesn't censor and put out nationalistic/propaganda. Edited to clarify.",
">\n\nExactly man, that is why I'm saying that censoring is not the right call. Once the government censors you from reading international media, you are influenced by your own government and you know and think only what they want you to know and think. Having trust in your own government is ok but trusting it blindly is not. It makes you easily influenced by your own government,a puppet and as you said, every nation in conflict is making propaganda.",
">\n\nNo different than really any other country that has been in a total war. I just hope that's it's a temporary war measure, which I'm not sure it is.",
">\n\nTotally normal behavior",
">\n\nSounds like news sensorship to me..",
">\n\nHope rises. Discontent rises slightly.\nBeware of the poet's suicide.\nP.s. This is a game reference",
">\n\n1000% normal in war times. Many countries have done this before. It's impossible for Ukraine not to do this given how much Russia is investing into disinformation. Literally having speaker cars driving through the streets with propaganda 24/7. Broadcasting fake news into Ukraine through all mediums. If they get to a large group of people in the US imagine the amount of people they can influence when it comes to their neighbors.\nThe only way they can get Ukraine to lose the war is to break the people's will to fight and they're doing this by not only bombing schools, playgrounds, hospitals and powerplants to freeze them to death but also spreading propaganda to make the people second guess their leadership",
">\n\nCountries do this all the time. Even the US.\nStop trying to vilify Ukraine to appease that shit cabbage Putin. Russia invaded them, not the other way around.",
">\n\nI love watching people try to balance not being called out on ignoring Ukraine's pre-existing corruption and keeping the \"Ukraine = unquestionable good guys\" narrative.\nThere's nothing that says war HAS to be \"good guys vs bad guys\".",
">\n\nPeople have every right to complain about this. But remember Ukraine is fighting in the fields for their very existence.",
">\n\nZelensky understands Democracy more than people think. He's most likely changing it now because of the WAR so that not much information gets back to the enemy.. Remember when Ukraine did both big successful offensives they had a Media Blackout.",
">\n\nOnly state-approved propaganda is authorized",
">\n\nPeople are dumbasses in this thread, and have no idea how propaganda, and filtering media works. There's a reason why propaganda is dangerous, and there are reasons why it's blocked.\nNarrow minded AF.",
">\n\nIn war, certain civil liberties are curtailed. It is this way, it’s always been this way, and it will always be this way. War is not a game. It’s not good that this happens, of course, but it’s one of the many reasons war is bad.",
">\n\nThis definitely isn't suspicious at all",
">\n\nIt’s a standard phenomenon at war time.",
">\n\nOf course he did",
">\n\nWeeeird. Can’t wait to read all the comments somehow blaming this on Russia.",
">\n\nDoesn't sound very Democratic to me, Bob",
">\n\nI wish America would do the same or at least punish journalist & there agencies that promote there views if they are acting in a propagandists manor kinda like Cough 🦊 Cough 🦊"
] |
>
So he is fascist? | [
"Just curious, how did the US regulate media during WWII if at all? Obviously the war department was churning out war news and propaganda, but did they censor/restrict any media from being published?",
">\n\nYes, absolutely. They formed the Office of Censorship and heavily regulated the press, especially radio. But it was almost entirely geared towards preventing information on troop movements and weather from getting out, and coded enemy messages from getting in. They didn't force stations to broadcast propaganda or ban negative stories, and most of the restrictions were followed voluntarily.\nThere was also the Office of War Information which was responsible for producing propaganda and rejected film scripts that were critical or negative regarding the war effort - but they did not restrict the press to my knowledge.",
">\n\nSuper interesting! Thanks for sharing. Yes it seems this was a bit more functional about what comes in and out of the country, not necessarily with what’s published domestically as far as swaying public opinion. Also TIL the catch phrase “loose lips sink ships” came from this agency.\nThe voluntary aspect is somewhat enlightening as to how unified the country was in the war effort. The cynic in me makes me even more curious if there was other censorship at play outside of this agency that helped create that sentiment. I feel like someone would have replied about some landmark Supreme Court case by now though if that were the case.",
">\n\nAmerican's have a curious ability to get in line when there is a clear and present danger to the nation. Someone summed it up with \"You can always count on American's to do the right thing when they have no other option.\"",
">\n\nWinston Churchill famously stated “Americans will always do the right thing, only after they have tried everything else.\"\nIs that the quote you are thinking of?",
">\n\nIt was attributed to him, but tracing things down, it was apparent not said by him and I’ve heard both versions.",
">\n\nLawmakers have touted the bill as an effort to bring Ukraine's media laws closer to European Union standards as the country makes a bid to join the 27-member bloc. They have also argued that it will help counter Russian propaganda as Russia's invasion of Ukraine nears its one-year anniversary.\nBut organizations representing journalists say the law will erode press freedoms in Ukraine. Under the law, Ukraine's media regulator could block websites that are not registered with the government as news organizations, The Kyiv Independent reported on Friday. \nThe law is at odds with freedoms given to the press in other parts of Europe, the European Federation of Journalists said in a statement on Friday, according to the Times. \nEdit: because some users argued (with justification) that my post kept specific details hidden, I added the rest of the news post. I also checked the Kyiv Independent and it checks out.",
">\n\nWhile this is true, if I'm not mistaken some EU members have still spoken out against the bill - mainly because the new regulatory body will be led/run by the federal government, whereas in the EU they're generally a separate entity from the government run by civilians\nStill a step in the right direction, but I can see where people worry",
">\n\nHow is censorship a right step in any direction?",
">\n\nIt's indeed a double edged sword. On the one hand self-proclaimed news networks might spread their political agenda or incite illegal behaviour, on the other hand it's a real shortcut to control the media. This needs to be handled very carefully and probably by a body that's not interwoven with the government.",
">\n\nThere are few good options in war, especially a total war where the very survival of a country and ethnolinguistic group is at risk. Zelenskyy is probably going a bit far, but it’s hard to really blame him.",
">\n\nDepends on what the censorship is… trying to dispel discontentment with current ruling party or suppressing enemy state misinformation.",
">\n\nI think it's safe to infer the reasoning is to filter propaganda. I don't think there is much discontent with the current ruling party. Zelensky\"s approval ratings have been through the roof. Although, it's an easy power to abuse in the wrong hands.",
">\n\nI mean, can you think of a single instance in history where censorship was a net societal benefit, rolled back when no longer necessary, and not abused over the long-term? Nothing comes to mind.\nJournalists surely also know this to be the case, hence their outspoken opposition to the measure.",
">\n\nAbraham Lincoln suspending habeas corpus in the civil war is probably the best example for Americans in here. Would it be tolerated during peacetime? hell no. Would it be tolerated when the entire country is at an inflection point like the Ukraine is in 2023 and the US in 1861. Yes.\nedit: left out Abe's last name",
">\n\nWhat's it like to be on a first-name basis with Abraham Lincoln?",
">\n\nIt does make sense to block Russian \"news\" channels but its easily open to abuse",
">\n\nThis. Sounds like the Sedition Act of 1917. Easy to pass during wartime and makes sense, but probably wouldn’t get passed during peacetime. \nIt also doesn’t help that Ukraine was like #31 on the world’s corruption index prior to the war.",
">\n\nI vaguely recall reading that prior to the war Ukraine was the second most corrupt country in Europe, behind Russia.",
">\n\nThat's pretty much why Zelensky won the elections, he ran on an anti-corruption platform and has actually done a lot to combat it",
">\n\nLike what?",
">\n\nno more oligarchs",
">\n\nYou really think he ended the oligarchy? And it will only get 100x worse after the war when western businessmen come in to “fix” the country.",
">\n\nLmao this. We should all remember that he was also named in the Panama papers for holding 20+ million overseas",
">\n\nWhats so weird about successful actor having 20million to their name?",
">\n\nThey’ve been blocking the BBC on and off for years.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest lessons the world will learn from this conflict is that while Ukraine is/are the good guys… they are far, far behind a system that is akin to the western world.\nmy father’s grandfather was from Ukraine.\nAs he likes to say, Ukraine had 30 years to get their shit together so that when this day (02/24/22, Russia’s invasion which was always an inevitability if you know Ukraine, Ukraine’s history and geopolitics) arrived they’d be more than just militarily prepared.\nThey would be a part of NATO.. but Ukraine wanted to dip its toes in both democracy and wide-scale corruption.",
">\n\nFrom what I understand, the oligarchs and who grabbed up all the candy when the USSR piñata ruptured have been a big part of the problem. They have lost a lot of power and wealth, and some experts believe that this could create a political space for serious reform. I sure hope so!",
">\n\nExactly not to mention many oligarchs actually own news outlets and even television stations. I get what they’re trying to do given the war, but they have to be careful with the execution of it because it’s a step away from authoritarian control over news and media. News and media should be free but within limits too. Ex. Carlson tucker on Fox News in the US isn’t exactly unbiased. If there was a Ukrainian counterpart, they’d try to shut it down.",
">\n\nA nation in war time does not have the luxury of entertaining 100% freedom of information, especially considering the constant misinformation campaigns waged by Russia on top of its land war.",
">\n\nShutting on and off news websites? Banning political parties? BAWWW TYRANNY.\n\nPeople should not be naive, Ukraine is at war, the survival of their nation is at stake.",
">\n\nPrecisely, and psyops against Ukraine are extremely active.\nI hope they can reach Western values one day, but this is war against a much bigger Country that does not play fair. \nLet's let Ukraine win this war first and give them some time to rebuild before their culture becomes more Western.",
">\n\nHere in Adelaide, Australia, we did that. In the days before websites so he wasn't blocked, but a certain editor knew he wasn't welcome and had to leave town. He was an awful liar and very divisive. Inherited a newspaper from his dad called 'The News'.\nAfter he left town he started a company named after the Adelaide paper, NewsCorp. Rupert Murdoch was the name he went by (though his first name is really Keith, not Rupert). Wonder whatever happened to him?",
">\n\nHe got mad and decided to ruin the world.",
">\n\n\"I think it's good when we do it\" is a dangerous justification",
">\n\nYes, it is very similar to how the freedom of press declined in Russia. All medias were required to be registered by some governmental department in order to \"control the flow of information from abroad\". In no time it became the instrument of banning unwanted media.\nThough I admit banning Russian state media is for the better. Could they be banned in Russia itself, too?",
">\n\nThe thing is who defines that the media is pro-Russian. While it stays for the Ukrainian government to define, Ukrainian freedom of speech basically is being destroyed.",
">\n\nNot really enough information in the article to make an informed opinion on this.\n \nDecision was made by parliament, Zelenskyy's role in this is to sign the law, much like other world leaders don't necessarily agree with everything they have to sign.\nThe article mentions this is to allow them to ban websites not listed as media, which to me means the ability to ban any website if it isn't a registered media website. So, specifically to not allow them to block news websites so long as they are registered.\nAlso mentions this was to try and bring them more in line with EU countries, while at the same time saying it does the opposite.\n \nDo we have a link to the actual text of the new law?",
">\n\nSlippery slope",
">\n\nMost of the west have already blocked RT for their disinformation.",
">\n\nPrivate companies blocking is one thing, but governments is very different.\nA lot of laws created with \"good intentions\" are very often used for bad things, especially in countries with long history of corruption like Ukraine.",
">\n\nFrance is blocking RT",
">\n\nThese things happen during war, in every country.\nThe real test is seeing what laws will be repealed once this is all over imo.",
">\n\n\nThe real test is seeing what laws will be repealed once this is all over\n\nNone of them will be. Governments never voluntarily surrender any measure of control over the people. That's why the US is still officially in a state of national emergency 22 years after 9/11: so that the government elites can keep using their \"temporary\" emergency powers.",
">\n\nThe exact opposite has been happening in a lot of cases. The war has been used as an excuse to carry out a lot of deregulation and liberalization",
">\n\nLike when they banned left wing opposition parties?",
">\n\nArticle says websites not registered as media could be blocked. Kind of the opposite of what the headline says...",
">\n\nGovernments never relinquish power once they have it. Look at how the patriot act went from protecting our country to taking our rights. This is not a slippery slope. This is what corruption looks like. I really want Ukraine to succeed but decisions like this gives me trepidation.",
">\n\nRussia China bans websites \"fascists, ugly despots, violating human rights\" \nsomeone else does it \"understandable, well within their rights, good step\"\nAn accurate portrayal of exceptionalism",
">\n\nPeople have a hard time applying the same logic to things they like.",
">\n\nCool, there is certainly zero propaganda coming out Ukraine, for sure.",
">\n\nHa!",
">\n\nThat sounds like a healthy and not at all a government propaganda machine.",
">\n\nIt’s their country, let ‘em do as they choose. I can understand it during wartime, but in peacetime it sounds like one of those slippery slopes….",
">\n\nConsidering that before the war started everyone was talking about how corrupt the Ukraine government was I'd expect this to be abused for the duration of the war and after.",
">\n\nWestern media can be just as bad at spouting Russian propaganda. It seems like the editors have no ability to disseminate when I see headlines on APNews/Reuters weekly about how \"Putin is ready to negotiate but Ukraine refuses\".",
">\n\nI mean, this Business Insider article is a pretty fantastic case in point:\nare there reasonable concerns about this law? Yup.\nAre there extremely good reasons to pass it regardless, in a state of war against an adversary which thrives off propaganda? Also yes.\nWill Business Insider try and \"both sides\" this to get the \"BWUH 1984\" crowd arguing about their article? Final yes.",
">\n\nWell, Ukraine has never been the democratic heaven that the west is portraying it as in order to feed the propaganda. It's the most corrupt country in Europe and political opposition prior to the invasion was also suppressed.\nOne of Elensky's opposition leaders was in house arrest, although I can't remember his name. I think he escaped after the war started.",
">\n\nFreedom Fighter bans Dissent",
">\n\nThis is never good",
">\n\nYou either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.\n… Or maybe it’s to block Russian propaganda; idk",
">\n\nGovernment controlled media… if anyone thinks this is a good idea then you’re wrong",
">\n\nWhen has censorship ever been on the right side of history?",
">\n\nLincoln infamously censored free speech and the press during the American civil war, and often arrested (without due process!) anyone publishing media opposing the draft or expressing sympathy for the south",
">\n\n\"don't listen to that propaganda, listen to this propaganda\"",
">\n\nAnd so it begins.",
">\n\nI wonder how many pro-working class news outlets will suddenly be removed because they’re critical of Ukraine’s bourgeois government.",
">\n\nThe west is gonna act shocked when this war is over and it turns out Ukraine is still a corrupt place, but saying that makes me pro Russian or some shit",
">\n\nWhat irks me is them saying that being in the EU will supposedly make things better…",
">\n\nAs a country at war, censorship is not surprising. What will be telling is how they behave once the war is over.",
">\n\nSomething a totally not fascist would do, right?",
">\n\nwhen news reporting is killing your soldiers",
">\n\nHe already banned opposing political parties. What’s next?",
">\n\nThey also banned Russian and Rusyn languages schools. Its an ethnostate, simple as.",
">\n\nWar tends to be bad for freedom of speech. The Ukrainian people have a right to hear what pro-Russian media is saying.",
">\n\nAnd yet people claim that this guy is the savior of democracy? Aahahahahah, m'kay.",
">\n\nHonestly this isn't news. Countries are well known for curtailing news reporting during wartime. The US and UK did it during WW2. You don't want news media reporting the location of your troops or movements. \nThe test to democracy isn't what's passed during wartime, it's what's rescinded when war is over. When Ukraine eventually wins, the question will be how well do they transition to functioning, minimally corrupt transparent democracy. Will Zelensky and his successors freely give up power? Will the people elect fascist white nationalists who contributed to the war effort? The future remains to be seen. Well intentions can easily be lead astray.",
">\n\n“Could” is probably doing a lot of work here.",
">\n\nThe problem with that is that it shouldn’t. Laws need to be scoped heavily, or they will be rife with abuse.",
">\n\nSo censorship is suddenly ok because someone that’s not Russia did it.",
">\n\nThe headline sounds terrible. However reading helps add sense to it. \nBut I can't help to wonder whether blocking news websites due to \"weaponized media\" is a good thing or bad thing. I feel there's a gray line here that could be getting crossed and one has to question \"Is this propaganda that's being blocked, or is this our country censoring media brainwashing us in an attempt to strengthen their resolve?\" \nI'm all for Ukraine in this war, but in terms of a country censoring media, it's well.... a sticky subject. What action is the correct action when your enemies are using it as a weapon to confuse the public opinion?",
">\n\nI have no problem with this, RT is blocked in my country and Europe",
">\n\nafaik this is just ukraine setting up a media regulator along EU directives - all countries must have these mechanisms.",
">\n\nEU directives aren’t regulated by the government. Ukraine’s will be",
">\n\nDuring war time, I think that's fine. It's important to minimize Russian propaganda and to make sure no military information gets leaked.",
">\n\nIf the independent regulator can't be trusted during war time, why can it be trusted during peace time?",
">\n\nTo be very clear, this is many steps too far for peacetime and this bill isn't limited to wartime.\nI'm not Ukrainian and not an expert on the bill by any means but placing this under the same umbrella as the ~~federal~~ national government is dangerous and exposes the country to big problems down the road.\nI could defend it if the bill explicitly was for wartime. And many bills have expiration dates. But this is not good.",
">\n\nBut I thought he was about democracy?",
">\n\nGood if it's for the russian news websites only!\nNow, how about Ukraine's president fix that law forbidding romanian language to be taught to the romanian minority in Ukraine?\nAr we good neighbors respecting each other or are we not?",
">\n\nFinally someone who understands what is going on here.",
">\n\nGenius",
">\n\nAuto correct typo in my first post! Fixed.\nNot at all supporting suppression of dissent, but there has to be some way to block intentionally slander and misinformation, the hawking of all out lies through garbage like Alex Jones from bending the public discourse, and causing serious social harm. \nParading conspiracy theories or promoting propaganda created by the FSB to destabilize democracy isn't journalism, and isn't news. Legit journalism runs on facts and as such self corrects as better information comes to light. Propaganda either points to a new distraction or digs deeper into a lie, as do its adherents.",
">\n\nNo idea what people are complaining about. Ukraine had pro-Russian politicians in the parliament, russian fake news and pro-russian KGB \"church\" freely acting in Ukraine for years right before the invasion. The real question is why the didn't shut down them long before.",
">\n\nThe Smith act of 1940 comes to mind.\nUkraine is under threat of genocide. Let's see what happens after they win.",
">\n\nWe need to close/block russian or pro-russian websites.",
">\n\nOh no!",
">\n\nI just know its going to be a dark day if news reporters/programs are no longer allowed to make up news and are required to tell the entire story about something. \nSadly if you take away the freedom to blabber from a roof top, you also take away freedom of press",
">\n\nWhy not, news websites are a weapon and can be used by either side.",
">\n\nHmmmm. Interesting",
">\n\nThe beginning of the end",
">\n\nSuch a fascist",
">\n\nChurches next?",
">\n\nAlready",
">\n\nIt's very reasonable to find this offputting, but a ton of westerners are showing their chauvinism in this thread. Acting like any/every NATO country hasn't/wouldn't do this in times of war or great conflict is just asinine, governments pretty much everywhere will regulate whose propaganda is legal and whose isn't. Not saying it's always justified, but many westerners are acting like their shit don't stink.",
">\n\nBaltics and lot of EU countries have banned russian propoganda chanels. I agree with this. Russian propoganda is no joke and i would not recomend it for uninitiated.",
">\n\nThey didn’t ban Russian propaganda channels. Law allows government to block any news website they feel necessary. Given the track record of corruption in Ukrainian governance, this can’t be good.\nEdit: grammar",
">\n\nHaving a standard of what qualifies as news while engaged in a propaganda attack from a country several times your size if propferly monitored information through a board and independent laws could be a net positive\nI’m the USA the repeal of the fairness doctorine is often sited as a reason the news ended up with broadcasters telling people not to take a vaccine during a pandemic",
">\n\nWonder if Zelenskky will be Ukraine's ~~Dictator~~ President in 10 years time.",
">\n\nGet your popcorn while redditors try to tell you why this is a good thing and Zelensky can do no wrong",
">\n\nYikes",
">\n\nUkraine was corrupt as all hell before Russia invaded, and continue corrupt and not worthy of trust. Just because they're fighting for their sovereignty against Putin's evil ass doesn't mean they get a blank check to do whatever the fuck they want and pass it off as correct or for some greater good. This is authoritarian bullshit, nothing else.",
">\n\nIt's quite interesting to see the Zelensky fan boys doing their mental gymnastics to defend this policy. Having a government control what you can see is not good at all: it's a tactic thar has been used by most of the worst rulers in history: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.",
">\n\nI can understand why but honestly I think it’s a very slippery slope that most humans aren’t able to handle. Where’s the line at what is ok and what isn’t. A human decides that and humans are fallible.",
">\n\nThey were right to question this move. I hope the good President/Warrior isn't losing his head. This war is insane.",
">\n\nOne the one hand not too good depending on Implementation. One the other hand the legal framework to go against russian propaganda, misinformation and other Media based attenpts against ukraine.",
">\n\nThere is a lot of anti-Ukraine posts on OP’s profile, take this news with a grain of salt",
">\n\nThe UK blocked Russia Today and Sputnik from UK Satellites to stop their propoganda. It's a sensible thing to do in times of conflict.. we did the same to Nazi Germany also.",
">\n\nI think I just lost all respect for this guy",
">\n\nSecond most corrupt country in Europe (after Russia)... What else do you expect.",
">\n\nTough to balance government overreach against foreign interference.",
">\n\nThat's not good.",
">\n\nDon't pull a \"Russia\" bro. Wrong path to be taking.",
">\n\nYou do realize Russian propaganda channels are there and available to zombify people?\nI have spent so much of my personal time to report Youtube Channel24 videos and you have to show in each video where there is an explicit piece where there was a terrorist speech, it is tedious !! Also, noone seem to read an article cause the content is not like that at all",
">\n\nFor some people (especially here on reddit lmao) russian propaganda is any piece of informations you disagree with, and anyone saying it is either a bot or russian troll",
">\n\nRemember when the Russians invaded claiming there were Nazis in Ukraine?\nPepperidge Farms remembers.",
">\n\nPutin is not the good guy, but this doesn't mean Zelensky and the Ukranian government are a bunch of angels.",
">\n\nHe has cracked down on unions too.",
">\n\nDuring the civil war Lincoln has confederate sympathizing reports thrown in jail without trial. \nThis is not new",
">\n\nSomething seriously off with this man,",
">\n\nI’m sure when peace arrives, and one day Zelenskyy is replaced by a nefarious leader this law will also be remove right? Right?",
">\n\nLol watching this happen in slow motion while supposed lovers of freedom and the Ukrainian people just worship this man, who is an actor and he’s just gradually changing his role.",
">\n\nFreedom of speech? Hahaha, this is no better than Russia or China.",
">\n\nWhat a fucking dishonest headline. Shame on this publisher.",
">\n\nThis is a heck of a misleading headline, the law outlines blatant Russian propaganda sites as the issue. This is almost as bad as the reporting of them “banning orthodox religion” no they banned the orthodox Russian church, that church was using their religion as a cover to transport information back to Russia.",
">\n\nBad idea.",
">\n\nRussian propaganda is no joke and Ukraine probably needs the ability to block it. It's a shame this wasn't passed as wartime emergency legislation with an automatic repeal date though.",
">\n\nNothing to see here, just the good guys fighting against evil Russia 😅",
">\n\nAnd down the slippery slope we continue to slide.",
">\n\nHalf the problem with war now is the media giving g the game away ... there should 100% be restrictions on what the media can post during war time",
">\n\nWell, this headline is awful. First of all we already have such thing since 2015 I believe (one of popular examples is \"vk\" website), secondly - it's just EU standards. \nBtw we still don't have \"war censorship\", you can critisize government all you want.",
">\n\nImagine defending media censorship. China must be proud",
">\n\nRussia does exactly the same thing blocking websites that they consider to be spreading misinformation. And this is obviously bad.\nYet, the amount of double standards in this thread with people thinking that \"it's fine when Ukraine does it\" is absurd.\nBefore the war Ukraine was always on the top positions of most corrupt countries in Europe. This law WILL be abused.",
">\n\nRemember when he said he wanted to run his country more like a democracy…yeah, he just wants those dollars from the U.S",
">\n\nYup this is not the right way to do stuff... If you really wanna show that you are cleaning up the corruptness in your country then don't start making laws like this shit.",
">\n\nVery freedom loving and democratic",
">\n\nNothing says countering russian propaganda like censorship and more propaganda 👍",
">\n\nWatch Ukraine turn into a brutal dictatorship lead by the dancing with the stars jokey guy.",
">\n\nIts the same laws that govern the EU.",
">\n\nWell the corruption continues. “I think it’s good when we do it” Is not a good justification.",
">\n\nDictator for life",
">\n\nIt should only be valid as long as the war against Russia.",
">\n\nRussian \"new\" Websites, which actually are just propaganda machineries, should ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE be blocked.",
">\n\nUkraine has its own propaganda too.",
">\n\nName one nation in a conflict that doesn't censor and put out nationalistic/propaganda. Edited to clarify.",
">\n\nExactly man, that is why I'm saying that censoring is not the right call. Once the government censors you from reading international media, you are influenced by your own government and you know and think only what they want you to know and think. Having trust in your own government is ok but trusting it blindly is not. It makes you easily influenced by your own government,a puppet and as you said, every nation in conflict is making propaganda.",
">\n\nNo different than really any other country that has been in a total war. I just hope that's it's a temporary war measure, which I'm not sure it is.",
">\n\nTotally normal behavior",
">\n\nSounds like news sensorship to me..",
">\n\nHope rises. Discontent rises slightly.\nBeware of the poet's suicide.\nP.s. This is a game reference",
">\n\n1000% normal in war times. Many countries have done this before. It's impossible for Ukraine not to do this given how much Russia is investing into disinformation. Literally having speaker cars driving through the streets with propaganda 24/7. Broadcasting fake news into Ukraine through all mediums. If they get to a large group of people in the US imagine the amount of people they can influence when it comes to their neighbors.\nThe only way they can get Ukraine to lose the war is to break the people's will to fight and they're doing this by not only bombing schools, playgrounds, hospitals and powerplants to freeze them to death but also spreading propaganda to make the people second guess their leadership",
">\n\nCountries do this all the time. Even the US.\nStop trying to vilify Ukraine to appease that shit cabbage Putin. Russia invaded them, not the other way around.",
">\n\nI love watching people try to balance not being called out on ignoring Ukraine's pre-existing corruption and keeping the \"Ukraine = unquestionable good guys\" narrative.\nThere's nothing that says war HAS to be \"good guys vs bad guys\".",
">\n\nPeople have every right to complain about this. But remember Ukraine is fighting in the fields for their very existence.",
">\n\nZelensky understands Democracy more than people think. He's most likely changing it now because of the WAR so that not much information gets back to the enemy.. Remember when Ukraine did both big successful offensives they had a Media Blackout.",
">\n\nOnly state-approved propaganda is authorized",
">\n\nPeople are dumbasses in this thread, and have no idea how propaganda, and filtering media works. There's a reason why propaganda is dangerous, and there are reasons why it's blocked.\nNarrow minded AF.",
">\n\nIn war, certain civil liberties are curtailed. It is this way, it’s always been this way, and it will always be this way. War is not a game. It’s not good that this happens, of course, but it’s one of the many reasons war is bad.",
">\n\nThis definitely isn't suspicious at all",
">\n\nIt’s a standard phenomenon at war time.",
">\n\nOf course he did",
">\n\nWeeeird. Can’t wait to read all the comments somehow blaming this on Russia.",
">\n\nDoesn't sound very Democratic to me, Bob",
">\n\nI wish America would do the same or at least punish journalist & there agencies that promote there views if they are acting in a propagandists manor kinda like Cough 🦊 Cough 🦊",
">\n\nI get why they would want some censorship after the media leaked their military strategy, but I think it should be very limited"
] |
>
yep that's what a dictator does. also take note when russian invaded, they had to scramble to deliver guns to the citizens and were ill prepared. this is what NOT having a 2nd amendment looks like. a complete clusterF | [
"Just curious, how did the US regulate media during WWII if at all? Obviously the war department was churning out war news and propaganda, but did they censor/restrict any media from being published?",
">\n\nYes, absolutely. They formed the Office of Censorship and heavily regulated the press, especially radio. But it was almost entirely geared towards preventing information on troop movements and weather from getting out, and coded enemy messages from getting in. They didn't force stations to broadcast propaganda or ban negative stories, and most of the restrictions were followed voluntarily.\nThere was also the Office of War Information which was responsible for producing propaganda and rejected film scripts that were critical or negative regarding the war effort - but they did not restrict the press to my knowledge.",
">\n\nSuper interesting! Thanks for sharing. Yes it seems this was a bit more functional about what comes in and out of the country, not necessarily with what’s published domestically as far as swaying public opinion. Also TIL the catch phrase “loose lips sink ships” came from this agency.\nThe voluntary aspect is somewhat enlightening as to how unified the country was in the war effort. The cynic in me makes me even more curious if there was other censorship at play outside of this agency that helped create that sentiment. I feel like someone would have replied about some landmark Supreme Court case by now though if that were the case.",
">\n\nAmerican's have a curious ability to get in line when there is a clear and present danger to the nation. Someone summed it up with \"You can always count on American's to do the right thing when they have no other option.\"",
">\n\nWinston Churchill famously stated “Americans will always do the right thing, only after they have tried everything else.\"\nIs that the quote you are thinking of?",
">\n\nIt was attributed to him, but tracing things down, it was apparent not said by him and I’ve heard both versions.",
">\n\nLawmakers have touted the bill as an effort to bring Ukraine's media laws closer to European Union standards as the country makes a bid to join the 27-member bloc. They have also argued that it will help counter Russian propaganda as Russia's invasion of Ukraine nears its one-year anniversary.\nBut organizations representing journalists say the law will erode press freedoms in Ukraine. Under the law, Ukraine's media regulator could block websites that are not registered with the government as news organizations, The Kyiv Independent reported on Friday. \nThe law is at odds with freedoms given to the press in other parts of Europe, the European Federation of Journalists said in a statement on Friday, according to the Times. \nEdit: because some users argued (with justification) that my post kept specific details hidden, I added the rest of the news post. I also checked the Kyiv Independent and it checks out.",
">\n\nWhile this is true, if I'm not mistaken some EU members have still spoken out against the bill - mainly because the new regulatory body will be led/run by the federal government, whereas in the EU they're generally a separate entity from the government run by civilians\nStill a step in the right direction, but I can see where people worry",
">\n\nHow is censorship a right step in any direction?",
">\n\nIt's indeed a double edged sword. On the one hand self-proclaimed news networks might spread their political agenda or incite illegal behaviour, on the other hand it's a real shortcut to control the media. This needs to be handled very carefully and probably by a body that's not interwoven with the government.",
">\n\nThere are few good options in war, especially a total war where the very survival of a country and ethnolinguistic group is at risk. Zelenskyy is probably going a bit far, but it’s hard to really blame him.",
">\n\nDepends on what the censorship is… trying to dispel discontentment with current ruling party or suppressing enemy state misinformation.",
">\n\nI think it's safe to infer the reasoning is to filter propaganda. I don't think there is much discontent with the current ruling party. Zelensky\"s approval ratings have been through the roof. Although, it's an easy power to abuse in the wrong hands.",
">\n\nI mean, can you think of a single instance in history where censorship was a net societal benefit, rolled back when no longer necessary, and not abused over the long-term? Nothing comes to mind.\nJournalists surely also know this to be the case, hence their outspoken opposition to the measure.",
">\n\nAbraham Lincoln suspending habeas corpus in the civil war is probably the best example for Americans in here. Would it be tolerated during peacetime? hell no. Would it be tolerated when the entire country is at an inflection point like the Ukraine is in 2023 and the US in 1861. Yes.\nedit: left out Abe's last name",
">\n\nWhat's it like to be on a first-name basis with Abraham Lincoln?",
">\n\nIt does make sense to block Russian \"news\" channels but its easily open to abuse",
">\n\nThis. Sounds like the Sedition Act of 1917. Easy to pass during wartime and makes sense, but probably wouldn’t get passed during peacetime. \nIt also doesn’t help that Ukraine was like #31 on the world’s corruption index prior to the war.",
">\n\nI vaguely recall reading that prior to the war Ukraine was the second most corrupt country in Europe, behind Russia.",
">\n\nThat's pretty much why Zelensky won the elections, he ran on an anti-corruption platform and has actually done a lot to combat it",
">\n\nLike what?",
">\n\nno more oligarchs",
">\n\nYou really think he ended the oligarchy? And it will only get 100x worse after the war when western businessmen come in to “fix” the country.",
">\n\nLmao this. We should all remember that he was also named in the Panama papers for holding 20+ million overseas",
">\n\nWhats so weird about successful actor having 20million to their name?",
">\n\nThey’ve been blocking the BBC on and off for years.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest lessons the world will learn from this conflict is that while Ukraine is/are the good guys… they are far, far behind a system that is akin to the western world.\nmy father’s grandfather was from Ukraine.\nAs he likes to say, Ukraine had 30 years to get their shit together so that when this day (02/24/22, Russia’s invasion which was always an inevitability if you know Ukraine, Ukraine’s history and geopolitics) arrived they’d be more than just militarily prepared.\nThey would be a part of NATO.. but Ukraine wanted to dip its toes in both democracy and wide-scale corruption.",
">\n\nFrom what I understand, the oligarchs and who grabbed up all the candy when the USSR piñata ruptured have been a big part of the problem. They have lost a lot of power and wealth, and some experts believe that this could create a political space for serious reform. I sure hope so!",
">\n\nExactly not to mention many oligarchs actually own news outlets and even television stations. I get what they’re trying to do given the war, but they have to be careful with the execution of it because it’s a step away from authoritarian control over news and media. News and media should be free but within limits too. Ex. Carlson tucker on Fox News in the US isn’t exactly unbiased. If there was a Ukrainian counterpart, they’d try to shut it down.",
">\n\nA nation in war time does not have the luxury of entertaining 100% freedom of information, especially considering the constant misinformation campaigns waged by Russia on top of its land war.",
">\n\nShutting on and off news websites? Banning political parties? BAWWW TYRANNY.\n\nPeople should not be naive, Ukraine is at war, the survival of their nation is at stake.",
">\n\nPrecisely, and psyops against Ukraine are extremely active.\nI hope they can reach Western values one day, but this is war against a much bigger Country that does not play fair. \nLet's let Ukraine win this war first and give them some time to rebuild before their culture becomes more Western.",
">\n\nHere in Adelaide, Australia, we did that. In the days before websites so he wasn't blocked, but a certain editor knew he wasn't welcome and had to leave town. He was an awful liar and very divisive. Inherited a newspaper from his dad called 'The News'.\nAfter he left town he started a company named after the Adelaide paper, NewsCorp. Rupert Murdoch was the name he went by (though his first name is really Keith, not Rupert). Wonder whatever happened to him?",
">\n\nHe got mad and decided to ruin the world.",
">\n\n\"I think it's good when we do it\" is a dangerous justification",
">\n\nYes, it is very similar to how the freedom of press declined in Russia. All medias were required to be registered by some governmental department in order to \"control the flow of information from abroad\". In no time it became the instrument of banning unwanted media.\nThough I admit banning Russian state media is for the better. Could they be banned in Russia itself, too?",
">\n\nThe thing is who defines that the media is pro-Russian. While it stays for the Ukrainian government to define, Ukrainian freedom of speech basically is being destroyed.",
">\n\nNot really enough information in the article to make an informed opinion on this.\n \nDecision was made by parliament, Zelenskyy's role in this is to sign the law, much like other world leaders don't necessarily agree with everything they have to sign.\nThe article mentions this is to allow them to ban websites not listed as media, which to me means the ability to ban any website if it isn't a registered media website. So, specifically to not allow them to block news websites so long as they are registered.\nAlso mentions this was to try and bring them more in line with EU countries, while at the same time saying it does the opposite.\n \nDo we have a link to the actual text of the new law?",
">\n\nSlippery slope",
">\n\nMost of the west have already blocked RT for their disinformation.",
">\n\nPrivate companies blocking is one thing, but governments is very different.\nA lot of laws created with \"good intentions\" are very often used for bad things, especially in countries with long history of corruption like Ukraine.",
">\n\nFrance is blocking RT",
">\n\nThese things happen during war, in every country.\nThe real test is seeing what laws will be repealed once this is all over imo.",
">\n\n\nThe real test is seeing what laws will be repealed once this is all over\n\nNone of them will be. Governments never voluntarily surrender any measure of control over the people. That's why the US is still officially in a state of national emergency 22 years after 9/11: so that the government elites can keep using their \"temporary\" emergency powers.",
">\n\nThe exact opposite has been happening in a lot of cases. The war has been used as an excuse to carry out a lot of deregulation and liberalization",
">\n\nLike when they banned left wing opposition parties?",
">\n\nArticle says websites not registered as media could be blocked. Kind of the opposite of what the headline says...",
">\n\nGovernments never relinquish power once they have it. Look at how the patriot act went from protecting our country to taking our rights. This is not a slippery slope. This is what corruption looks like. I really want Ukraine to succeed but decisions like this gives me trepidation.",
">\n\nRussia China bans websites \"fascists, ugly despots, violating human rights\" \nsomeone else does it \"understandable, well within their rights, good step\"\nAn accurate portrayal of exceptionalism",
">\n\nPeople have a hard time applying the same logic to things they like.",
">\n\nCool, there is certainly zero propaganda coming out Ukraine, for sure.",
">\n\nHa!",
">\n\nThat sounds like a healthy and not at all a government propaganda machine.",
">\n\nIt’s their country, let ‘em do as they choose. I can understand it during wartime, but in peacetime it sounds like one of those slippery slopes….",
">\n\nConsidering that before the war started everyone was talking about how corrupt the Ukraine government was I'd expect this to be abused for the duration of the war and after.",
">\n\nWestern media can be just as bad at spouting Russian propaganda. It seems like the editors have no ability to disseminate when I see headlines on APNews/Reuters weekly about how \"Putin is ready to negotiate but Ukraine refuses\".",
">\n\nI mean, this Business Insider article is a pretty fantastic case in point:\nare there reasonable concerns about this law? Yup.\nAre there extremely good reasons to pass it regardless, in a state of war against an adversary which thrives off propaganda? Also yes.\nWill Business Insider try and \"both sides\" this to get the \"BWUH 1984\" crowd arguing about their article? Final yes.",
">\n\nWell, Ukraine has never been the democratic heaven that the west is portraying it as in order to feed the propaganda. It's the most corrupt country in Europe and political opposition prior to the invasion was also suppressed.\nOne of Elensky's opposition leaders was in house arrest, although I can't remember his name. I think he escaped after the war started.",
">\n\nFreedom Fighter bans Dissent",
">\n\nThis is never good",
">\n\nYou either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.\n… Or maybe it’s to block Russian propaganda; idk",
">\n\nGovernment controlled media… if anyone thinks this is a good idea then you’re wrong",
">\n\nWhen has censorship ever been on the right side of history?",
">\n\nLincoln infamously censored free speech and the press during the American civil war, and often arrested (without due process!) anyone publishing media opposing the draft or expressing sympathy for the south",
">\n\n\"don't listen to that propaganda, listen to this propaganda\"",
">\n\nAnd so it begins.",
">\n\nI wonder how many pro-working class news outlets will suddenly be removed because they’re critical of Ukraine’s bourgeois government.",
">\n\nThe west is gonna act shocked when this war is over and it turns out Ukraine is still a corrupt place, but saying that makes me pro Russian or some shit",
">\n\nWhat irks me is them saying that being in the EU will supposedly make things better…",
">\n\nAs a country at war, censorship is not surprising. What will be telling is how they behave once the war is over.",
">\n\nSomething a totally not fascist would do, right?",
">\n\nwhen news reporting is killing your soldiers",
">\n\nHe already banned opposing political parties. What’s next?",
">\n\nThey also banned Russian and Rusyn languages schools. Its an ethnostate, simple as.",
">\n\nWar tends to be bad for freedom of speech. The Ukrainian people have a right to hear what pro-Russian media is saying.",
">\n\nAnd yet people claim that this guy is the savior of democracy? Aahahahahah, m'kay.",
">\n\nHonestly this isn't news. Countries are well known for curtailing news reporting during wartime. The US and UK did it during WW2. You don't want news media reporting the location of your troops or movements. \nThe test to democracy isn't what's passed during wartime, it's what's rescinded when war is over. When Ukraine eventually wins, the question will be how well do they transition to functioning, minimally corrupt transparent democracy. Will Zelensky and his successors freely give up power? Will the people elect fascist white nationalists who contributed to the war effort? The future remains to be seen. Well intentions can easily be lead astray.",
">\n\n“Could” is probably doing a lot of work here.",
">\n\nThe problem with that is that it shouldn’t. Laws need to be scoped heavily, or they will be rife with abuse.",
">\n\nSo censorship is suddenly ok because someone that’s not Russia did it.",
">\n\nThe headline sounds terrible. However reading helps add sense to it. \nBut I can't help to wonder whether blocking news websites due to \"weaponized media\" is a good thing or bad thing. I feel there's a gray line here that could be getting crossed and one has to question \"Is this propaganda that's being blocked, or is this our country censoring media brainwashing us in an attempt to strengthen their resolve?\" \nI'm all for Ukraine in this war, but in terms of a country censoring media, it's well.... a sticky subject. What action is the correct action when your enemies are using it as a weapon to confuse the public opinion?",
">\n\nI have no problem with this, RT is blocked in my country and Europe",
">\n\nafaik this is just ukraine setting up a media regulator along EU directives - all countries must have these mechanisms.",
">\n\nEU directives aren’t regulated by the government. Ukraine’s will be",
">\n\nDuring war time, I think that's fine. It's important to minimize Russian propaganda and to make sure no military information gets leaked.",
">\n\nIf the independent regulator can't be trusted during war time, why can it be trusted during peace time?",
">\n\nTo be very clear, this is many steps too far for peacetime and this bill isn't limited to wartime.\nI'm not Ukrainian and not an expert on the bill by any means but placing this under the same umbrella as the ~~federal~~ national government is dangerous and exposes the country to big problems down the road.\nI could defend it if the bill explicitly was for wartime. And many bills have expiration dates. But this is not good.",
">\n\nBut I thought he was about democracy?",
">\n\nGood if it's for the russian news websites only!\nNow, how about Ukraine's president fix that law forbidding romanian language to be taught to the romanian minority in Ukraine?\nAr we good neighbors respecting each other or are we not?",
">\n\nFinally someone who understands what is going on here.",
">\n\nGenius",
">\n\nAuto correct typo in my first post! Fixed.\nNot at all supporting suppression of dissent, but there has to be some way to block intentionally slander and misinformation, the hawking of all out lies through garbage like Alex Jones from bending the public discourse, and causing serious social harm. \nParading conspiracy theories or promoting propaganda created by the FSB to destabilize democracy isn't journalism, and isn't news. Legit journalism runs on facts and as such self corrects as better information comes to light. Propaganda either points to a new distraction or digs deeper into a lie, as do its adherents.",
">\n\nNo idea what people are complaining about. Ukraine had pro-Russian politicians in the parliament, russian fake news and pro-russian KGB \"church\" freely acting in Ukraine for years right before the invasion. The real question is why the didn't shut down them long before.",
">\n\nThe Smith act of 1940 comes to mind.\nUkraine is under threat of genocide. Let's see what happens after they win.",
">\n\nWe need to close/block russian or pro-russian websites.",
">\n\nOh no!",
">\n\nI just know its going to be a dark day if news reporters/programs are no longer allowed to make up news and are required to tell the entire story about something. \nSadly if you take away the freedom to blabber from a roof top, you also take away freedom of press",
">\n\nWhy not, news websites are a weapon and can be used by either side.",
">\n\nHmmmm. Interesting",
">\n\nThe beginning of the end",
">\n\nSuch a fascist",
">\n\nChurches next?",
">\n\nAlready",
">\n\nIt's very reasonable to find this offputting, but a ton of westerners are showing their chauvinism in this thread. Acting like any/every NATO country hasn't/wouldn't do this in times of war or great conflict is just asinine, governments pretty much everywhere will regulate whose propaganda is legal and whose isn't. Not saying it's always justified, but many westerners are acting like their shit don't stink.",
">\n\nBaltics and lot of EU countries have banned russian propoganda chanels. I agree with this. Russian propoganda is no joke and i would not recomend it for uninitiated.",
">\n\nThey didn’t ban Russian propaganda channels. Law allows government to block any news website they feel necessary. Given the track record of corruption in Ukrainian governance, this can’t be good.\nEdit: grammar",
">\n\nHaving a standard of what qualifies as news while engaged in a propaganda attack from a country several times your size if propferly monitored information through a board and independent laws could be a net positive\nI’m the USA the repeal of the fairness doctorine is often sited as a reason the news ended up with broadcasters telling people not to take a vaccine during a pandemic",
">\n\nWonder if Zelenskky will be Ukraine's ~~Dictator~~ President in 10 years time.",
">\n\nGet your popcorn while redditors try to tell you why this is a good thing and Zelensky can do no wrong",
">\n\nYikes",
">\n\nUkraine was corrupt as all hell before Russia invaded, and continue corrupt and not worthy of trust. Just because they're fighting for their sovereignty against Putin's evil ass doesn't mean they get a blank check to do whatever the fuck they want and pass it off as correct or for some greater good. This is authoritarian bullshit, nothing else.",
">\n\nIt's quite interesting to see the Zelensky fan boys doing their mental gymnastics to defend this policy. Having a government control what you can see is not good at all: it's a tactic thar has been used by most of the worst rulers in history: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.",
">\n\nI can understand why but honestly I think it’s a very slippery slope that most humans aren’t able to handle. Where’s the line at what is ok and what isn’t. A human decides that and humans are fallible.",
">\n\nThey were right to question this move. I hope the good President/Warrior isn't losing his head. This war is insane.",
">\n\nOne the one hand not too good depending on Implementation. One the other hand the legal framework to go against russian propaganda, misinformation and other Media based attenpts against ukraine.",
">\n\nThere is a lot of anti-Ukraine posts on OP’s profile, take this news with a grain of salt",
">\n\nThe UK blocked Russia Today and Sputnik from UK Satellites to stop their propoganda. It's a sensible thing to do in times of conflict.. we did the same to Nazi Germany also.",
">\n\nI think I just lost all respect for this guy",
">\n\nSecond most corrupt country in Europe (after Russia)... What else do you expect.",
">\n\nTough to balance government overreach against foreign interference.",
">\n\nThat's not good.",
">\n\nDon't pull a \"Russia\" bro. Wrong path to be taking.",
">\n\nYou do realize Russian propaganda channels are there and available to zombify people?\nI have spent so much of my personal time to report Youtube Channel24 videos and you have to show in each video where there is an explicit piece where there was a terrorist speech, it is tedious !! Also, noone seem to read an article cause the content is not like that at all",
">\n\nFor some people (especially here on reddit lmao) russian propaganda is any piece of informations you disagree with, and anyone saying it is either a bot or russian troll",
">\n\nRemember when the Russians invaded claiming there were Nazis in Ukraine?\nPepperidge Farms remembers.",
">\n\nPutin is not the good guy, but this doesn't mean Zelensky and the Ukranian government are a bunch of angels.",
">\n\nHe has cracked down on unions too.",
">\n\nDuring the civil war Lincoln has confederate sympathizing reports thrown in jail without trial. \nThis is not new",
">\n\nSomething seriously off with this man,",
">\n\nI’m sure when peace arrives, and one day Zelenskyy is replaced by a nefarious leader this law will also be remove right? Right?",
">\n\nLol watching this happen in slow motion while supposed lovers of freedom and the Ukrainian people just worship this man, who is an actor and he’s just gradually changing his role.",
">\n\nFreedom of speech? Hahaha, this is no better than Russia or China.",
">\n\nWhat a fucking dishonest headline. Shame on this publisher.",
">\n\nThis is a heck of a misleading headline, the law outlines blatant Russian propaganda sites as the issue. This is almost as bad as the reporting of them “banning orthodox religion” no they banned the orthodox Russian church, that church was using their religion as a cover to transport information back to Russia.",
">\n\nBad idea.",
">\n\nRussian propaganda is no joke and Ukraine probably needs the ability to block it. It's a shame this wasn't passed as wartime emergency legislation with an automatic repeal date though.",
">\n\nNothing to see here, just the good guys fighting against evil Russia 😅",
">\n\nAnd down the slippery slope we continue to slide.",
">\n\nHalf the problem with war now is the media giving g the game away ... there should 100% be restrictions on what the media can post during war time",
">\n\nWell, this headline is awful. First of all we already have such thing since 2015 I believe (one of popular examples is \"vk\" website), secondly - it's just EU standards. \nBtw we still don't have \"war censorship\", you can critisize government all you want.",
">\n\nImagine defending media censorship. China must be proud",
">\n\nRussia does exactly the same thing blocking websites that they consider to be spreading misinformation. And this is obviously bad.\nYet, the amount of double standards in this thread with people thinking that \"it's fine when Ukraine does it\" is absurd.\nBefore the war Ukraine was always on the top positions of most corrupt countries in Europe. This law WILL be abused.",
">\n\nRemember when he said he wanted to run his country more like a democracy…yeah, he just wants those dollars from the U.S",
">\n\nYup this is not the right way to do stuff... If you really wanna show that you are cleaning up the corruptness in your country then don't start making laws like this shit.",
">\n\nVery freedom loving and democratic",
">\n\nNothing says countering russian propaganda like censorship and more propaganda 👍",
">\n\nWatch Ukraine turn into a brutal dictatorship lead by the dancing with the stars jokey guy.",
">\n\nIts the same laws that govern the EU.",
">\n\nWell the corruption continues. “I think it’s good when we do it” Is not a good justification.",
">\n\nDictator for life",
">\n\nIt should only be valid as long as the war against Russia.",
">\n\nRussian \"new\" Websites, which actually are just propaganda machineries, should ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE be blocked.",
">\n\nUkraine has its own propaganda too.",
">\n\nName one nation in a conflict that doesn't censor and put out nationalistic/propaganda. Edited to clarify.",
">\n\nExactly man, that is why I'm saying that censoring is not the right call. Once the government censors you from reading international media, you are influenced by your own government and you know and think only what they want you to know and think. Having trust in your own government is ok but trusting it blindly is not. It makes you easily influenced by your own government,a puppet and as you said, every nation in conflict is making propaganda.",
">\n\nNo different than really any other country that has been in a total war. I just hope that's it's a temporary war measure, which I'm not sure it is.",
">\n\nTotally normal behavior",
">\n\nSounds like news sensorship to me..",
">\n\nHope rises. Discontent rises slightly.\nBeware of the poet's suicide.\nP.s. This is a game reference",
">\n\n1000% normal in war times. Many countries have done this before. It's impossible for Ukraine not to do this given how much Russia is investing into disinformation. Literally having speaker cars driving through the streets with propaganda 24/7. Broadcasting fake news into Ukraine through all mediums. If they get to a large group of people in the US imagine the amount of people they can influence when it comes to their neighbors.\nThe only way they can get Ukraine to lose the war is to break the people's will to fight and they're doing this by not only bombing schools, playgrounds, hospitals and powerplants to freeze them to death but also spreading propaganda to make the people second guess their leadership",
">\n\nCountries do this all the time. Even the US.\nStop trying to vilify Ukraine to appease that shit cabbage Putin. Russia invaded them, not the other way around.",
">\n\nI love watching people try to balance not being called out on ignoring Ukraine's pre-existing corruption and keeping the \"Ukraine = unquestionable good guys\" narrative.\nThere's nothing that says war HAS to be \"good guys vs bad guys\".",
">\n\nPeople have every right to complain about this. But remember Ukraine is fighting in the fields for their very existence.",
">\n\nZelensky understands Democracy more than people think. He's most likely changing it now because of the WAR so that not much information gets back to the enemy.. Remember when Ukraine did both big successful offensives they had a Media Blackout.",
">\n\nOnly state-approved propaganda is authorized",
">\n\nPeople are dumbasses in this thread, and have no idea how propaganda, and filtering media works. There's a reason why propaganda is dangerous, and there are reasons why it's blocked.\nNarrow minded AF.",
">\n\nIn war, certain civil liberties are curtailed. It is this way, it’s always been this way, and it will always be this way. War is not a game. It’s not good that this happens, of course, but it’s one of the many reasons war is bad.",
">\n\nThis definitely isn't suspicious at all",
">\n\nIt’s a standard phenomenon at war time.",
">\n\nOf course he did",
">\n\nWeeeird. Can’t wait to read all the comments somehow blaming this on Russia.",
">\n\nDoesn't sound very Democratic to me, Bob",
">\n\nI wish America would do the same or at least punish journalist & there agencies that promote there views if they are acting in a propagandists manor kinda like Cough 🦊 Cough 🦊",
">\n\nI get why they would want some censorship after the media leaked their military strategy, but I think it should be very limited",
">\n\nSo he is fascist?"
] |
>
Uh oh | [
"Just curious, how did the US regulate media during WWII if at all? Obviously the war department was churning out war news and propaganda, but did they censor/restrict any media from being published?",
">\n\nYes, absolutely. They formed the Office of Censorship and heavily regulated the press, especially radio. But it was almost entirely geared towards preventing information on troop movements and weather from getting out, and coded enemy messages from getting in. They didn't force stations to broadcast propaganda or ban negative stories, and most of the restrictions were followed voluntarily.\nThere was also the Office of War Information which was responsible for producing propaganda and rejected film scripts that were critical or negative regarding the war effort - but they did not restrict the press to my knowledge.",
">\n\nSuper interesting! Thanks for sharing. Yes it seems this was a bit more functional about what comes in and out of the country, not necessarily with what’s published domestically as far as swaying public opinion. Also TIL the catch phrase “loose lips sink ships” came from this agency.\nThe voluntary aspect is somewhat enlightening as to how unified the country was in the war effort. The cynic in me makes me even more curious if there was other censorship at play outside of this agency that helped create that sentiment. I feel like someone would have replied about some landmark Supreme Court case by now though if that were the case.",
">\n\nAmerican's have a curious ability to get in line when there is a clear and present danger to the nation. Someone summed it up with \"You can always count on American's to do the right thing when they have no other option.\"",
">\n\nWinston Churchill famously stated “Americans will always do the right thing, only after they have tried everything else.\"\nIs that the quote you are thinking of?",
">\n\nIt was attributed to him, but tracing things down, it was apparent not said by him and I’ve heard both versions.",
">\n\nLawmakers have touted the bill as an effort to bring Ukraine's media laws closer to European Union standards as the country makes a bid to join the 27-member bloc. They have also argued that it will help counter Russian propaganda as Russia's invasion of Ukraine nears its one-year anniversary.\nBut organizations representing journalists say the law will erode press freedoms in Ukraine. Under the law, Ukraine's media regulator could block websites that are not registered with the government as news organizations, The Kyiv Independent reported on Friday. \nThe law is at odds with freedoms given to the press in other parts of Europe, the European Federation of Journalists said in a statement on Friday, according to the Times. \nEdit: because some users argued (with justification) that my post kept specific details hidden, I added the rest of the news post. I also checked the Kyiv Independent and it checks out.",
">\n\nWhile this is true, if I'm not mistaken some EU members have still spoken out against the bill - mainly because the new regulatory body will be led/run by the federal government, whereas in the EU they're generally a separate entity from the government run by civilians\nStill a step in the right direction, but I can see where people worry",
">\n\nHow is censorship a right step in any direction?",
">\n\nIt's indeed a double edged sword. On the one hand self-proclaimed news networks might spread their political agenda or incite illegal behaviour, on the other hand it's a real shortcut to control the media. This needs to be handled very carefully and probably by a body that's not interwoven with the government.",
">\n\nThere are few good options in war, especially a total war where the very survival of a country and ethnolinguistic group is at risk. Zelenskyy is probably going a bit far, but it’s hard to really blame him.",
">\n\nDepends on what the censorship is… trying to dispel discontentment with current ruling party or suppressing enemy state misinformation.",
">\n\nI think it's safe to infer the reasoning is to filter propaganda. I don't think there is much discontent with the current ruling party. Zelensky\"s approval ratings have been through the roof. Although, it's an easy power to abuse in the wrong hands.",
">\n\nI mean, can you think of a single instance in history where censorship was a net societal benefit, rolled back when no longer necessary, and not abused over the long-term? Nothing comes to mind.\nJournalists surely also know this to be the case, hence their outspoken opposition to the measure.",
">\n\nAbraham Lincoln suspending habeas corpus in the civil war is probably the best example for Americans in here. Would it be tolerated during peacetime? hell no. Would it be tolerated when the entire country is at an inflection point like the Ukraine is in 2023 and the US in 1861. Yes.\nedit: left out Abe's last name",
">\n\nWhat's it like to be on a first-name basis with Abraham Lincoln?",
">\n\nIt does make sense to block Russian \"news\" channels but its easily open to abuse",
">\n\nThis. Sounds like the Sedition Act of 1917. Easy to pass during wartime and makes sense, but probably wouldn’t get passed during peacetime. \nIt also doesn’t help that Ukraine was like #31 on the world’s corruption index prior to the war.",
">\n\nI vaguely recall reading that prior to the war Ukraine was the second most corrupt country in Europe, behind Russia.",
">\n\nThat's pretty much why Zelensky won the elections, he ran on an anti-corruption platform and has actually done a lot to combat it",
">\n\nLike what?",
">\n\nno more oligarchs",
">\n\nYou really think he ended the oligarchy? And it will only get 100x worse after the war when western businessmen come in to “fix” the country.",
">\n\nLmao this. We should all remember that he was also named in the Panama papers for holding 20+ million overseas",
">\n\nWhats so weird about successful actor having 20million to their name?",
">\n\nThey’ve been blocking the BBC on and off for years.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest lessons the world will learn from this conflict is that while Ukraine is/are the good guys… they are far, far behind a system that is akin to the western world.\nmy father’s grandfather was from Ukraine.\nAs he likes to say, Ukraine had 30 years to get their shit together so that when this day (02/24/22, Russia’s invasion which was always an inevitability if you know Ukraine, Ukraine’s history and geopolitics) arrived they’d be more than just militarily prepared.\nThey would be a part of NATO.. but Ukraine wanted to dip its toes in both democracy and wide-scale corruption.",
">\n\nFrom what I understand, the oligarchs and who grabbed up all the candy when the USSR piñata ruptured have been a big part of the problem. They have lost a lot of power and wealth, and some experts believe that this could create a political space for serious reform. I sure hope so!",
">\n\nExactly not to mention many oligarchs actually own news outlets and even television stations. I get what they’re trying to do given the war, but they have to be careful with the execution of it because it’s a step away from authoritarian control over news and media. News and media should be free but within limits too. Ex. Carlson tucker on Fox News in the US isn’t exactly unbiased. If there was a Ukrainian counterpart, they’d try to shut it down.",
">\n\nA nation in war time does not have the luxury of entertaining 100% freedom of information, especially considering the constant misinformation campaigns waged by Russia on top of its land war.",
">\n\nShutting on and off news websites? Banning political parties? BAWWW TYRANNY.\n\nPeople should not be naive, Ukraine is at war, the survival of their nation is at stake.",
">\n\nPrecisely, and psyops against Ukraine are extremely active.\nI hope they can reach Western values one day, but this is war against a much bigger Country that does not play fair. \nLet's let Ukraine win this war first and give them some time to rebuild before their culture becomes more Western.",
">\n\nHere in Adelaide, Australia, we did that. In the days before websites so he wasn't blocked, but a certain editor knew he wasn't welcome and had to leave town. He was an awful liar and very divisive. Inherited a newspaper from his dad called 'The News'.\nAfter he left town he started a company named after the Adelaide paper, NewsCorp. Rupert Murdoch was the name he went by (though his first name is really Keith, not Rupert). Wonder whatever happened to him?",
">\n\nHe got mad and decided to ruin the world.",
">\n\n\"I think it's good when we do it\" is a dangerous justification",
">\n\nYes, it is very similar to how the freedom of press declined in Russia. All medias were required to be registered by some governmental department in order to \"control the flow of information from abroad\". In no time it became the instrument of banning unwanted media.\nThough I admit banning Russian state media is for the better. Could they be banned in Russia itself, too?",
">\n\nThe thing is who defines that the media is pro-Russian. While it stays for the Ukrainian government to define, Ukrainian freedom of speech basically is being destroyed.",
">\n\nNot really enough information in the article to make an informed opinion on this.\n \nDecision was made by parliament, Zelenskyy's role in this is to sign the law, much like other world leaders don't necessarily agree with everything they have to sign.\nThe article mentions this is to allow them to ban websites not listed as media, which to me means the ability to ban any website if it isn't a registered media website. So, specifically to not allow them to block news websites so long as they are registered.\nAlso mentions this was to try and bring them more in line with EU countries, while at the same time saying it does the opposite.\n \nDo we have a link to the actual text of the new law?",
">\n\nSlippery slope",
">\n\nMost of the west have already blocked RT for their disinformation.",
">\n\nPrivate companies blocking is one thing, but governments is very different.\nA lot of laws created with \"good intentions\" are very often used for bad things, especially in countries with long history of corruption like Ukraine.",
">\n\nFrance is blocking RT",
">\n\nThese things happen during war, in every country.\nThe real test is seeing what laws will be repealed once this is all over imo.",
">\n\n\nThe real test is seeing what laws will be repealed once this is all over\n\nNone of them will be. Governments never voluntarily surrender any measure of control over the people. That's why the US is still officially in a state of national emergency 22 years after 9/11: so that the government elites can keep using their \"temporary\" emergency powers.",
">\n\nThe exact opposite has been happening in a lot of cases. The war has been used as an excuse to carry out a lot of deregulation and liberalization",
">\n\nLike when they banned left wing opposition parties?",
">\n\nArticle says websites not registered as media could be blocked. Kind of the opposite of what the headline says...",
">\n\nGovernments never relinquish power once they have it. Look at how the patriot act went from protecting our country to taking our rights. This is not a slippery slope. This is what corruption looks like. I really want Ukraine to succeed but decisions like this gives me trepidation.",
">\n\nRussia China bans websites \"fascists, ugly despots, violating human rights\" \nsomeone else does it \"understandable, well within their rights, good step\"\nAn accurate portrayal of exceptionalism",
">\n\nPeople have a hard time applying the same logic to things they like.",
">\n\nCool, there is certainly zero propaganda coming out Ukraine, for sure.",
">\n\nHa!",
">\n\nThat sounds like a healthy and not at all a government propaganda machine.",
">\n\nIt’s their country, let ‘em do as they choose. I can understand it during wartime, but in peacetime it sounds like one of those slippery slopes….",
">\n\nConsidering that before the war started everyone was talking about how corrupt the Ukraine government was I'd expect this to be abused for the duration of the war and after.",
">\n\nWestern media can be just as bad at spouting Russian propaganda. It seems like the editors have no ability to disseminate when I see headlines on APNews/Reuters weekly about how \"Putin is ready to negotiate but Ukraine refuses\".",
">\n\nI mean, this Business Insider article is a pretty fantastic case in point:\nare there reasonable concerns about this law? Yup.\nAre there extremely good reasons to pass it regardless, in a state of war against an adversary which thrives off propaganda? Also yes.\nWill Business Insider try and \"both sides\" this to get the \"BWUH 1984\" crowd arguing about their article? Final yes.",
">\n\nWell, Ukraine has never been the democratic heaven that the west is portraying it as in order to feed the propaganda. It's the most corrupt country in Europe and political opposition prior to the invasion was also suppressed.\nOne of Elensky's opposition leaders was in house arrest, although I can't remember his name. I think he escaped after the war started.",
">\n\nFreedom Fighter bans Dissent",
">\n\nThis is never good",
">\n\nYou either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.\n… Or maybe it’s to block Russian propaganda; idk",
">\n\nGovernment controlled media… if anyone thinks this is a good idea then you’re wrong",
">\n\nWhen has censorship ever been on the right side of history?",
">\n\nLincoln infamously censored free speech and the press during the American civil war, and often arrested (without due process!) anyone publishing media opposing the draft or expressing sympathy for the south",
">\n\n\"don't listen to that propaganda, listen to this propaganda\"",
">\n\nAnd so it begins.",
">\n\nI wonder how many pro-working class news outlets will suddenly be removed because they’re critical of Ukraine’s bourgeois government.",
">\n\nThe west is gonna act shocked when this war is over and it turns out Ukraine is still a corrupt place, but saying that makes me pro Russian or some shit",
">\n\nWhat irks me is them saying that being in the EU will supposedly make things better…",
">\n\nAs a country at war, censorship is not surprising. What will be telling is how they behave once the war is over.",
">\n\nSomething a totally not fascist would do, right?",
">\n\nwhen news reporting is killing your soldiers",
">\n\nHe already banned opposing political parties. What’s next?",
">\n\nThey also banned Russian and Rusyn languages schools. Its an ethnostate, simple as.",
">\n\nWar tends to be bad for freedom of speech. The Ukrainian people have a right to hear what pro-Russian media is saying.",
">\n\nAnd yet people claim that this guy is the savior of democracy? Aahahahahah, m'kay.",
">\n\nHonestly this isn't news. Countries are well known for curtailing news reporting during wartime. The US and UK did it during WW2. You don't want news media reporting the location of your troops or movements. \nThe test to democracy isn't what's passed during wartime, it's what's rescinded when war is over. When Ukraine eventually wins, the question will be how well do they transition to functioning, minimally corrupt transparent democracy. Will Zelensky and his successors freely give up power? Will the people elect fascist white nationalists who contributed to the war effort? The future remains to be seen. Well intentions can easily be lead astray.",
">\n\n“Could” is probably doing a lot of work here.",
">\n\nThe problem with that is that it shouldn’t. Laws need to be scoped heavily, or they will be rife with abuse.",
">\n\nSo censorship is suddenly ok because someone that’s not Russia did it.",
">\n\nThe headline sounds terrible. However reading helps add sense to it. \nBut I can't help to wonder whether blocking news websites due to \"weaponized media\" is a good thing or bad thing. I feel there's a gray line here that could be getting crossed and one has to question \"Is this propaganda that's being blocked, or is this our country censoring media brainwashing us in an attempt to strengthen their resolve?\" \nI'm all for Ukraine in this war, but in terms of a country censoring media, it's well.... a sticky subject. What action is the correct action when your enemies are using it as a weapon to confuse the public opinion?",
">\n\nI have no problem with this, RT is blocked in my country and Europe",
">\n\nafaik this is just ukraine setting up a media regulator along EU directives - all countries must have these mechanisms.",
">\n\nEU directives aren’t regulated by the government. Ukraine’s will be",
">\n\nDuring war time, I think that's fine. It's important to minimize Russian propaganda and to make sure no military information gets leaked.",
">\n\nIf the independent regulator can't be trusted during war time, why can it be trusted during peace time?",
">\n\nTo be very clear, this is many steps too far for peacetime and this bill isn't limited to wartime.\nI'm not Ukrainian and not an expert on the bill by any means but placing this under the same umbrella as the ~~federal~~ national government is dangerous and exposes the country to big problems down the road.\nI could defend it if the bill explicitly was for wartime. And many bills have expiration dates. But this is not good.",
">\n\nBut I thought he was about democracy?",
">\n\nGood if it's for the russian news websites only!\nNow, how about Ukraine's president fix that law forbidding romanian language to be taught to the romanian minority in Ukraine?\nAr we good neighbors respecting each other or are we not?",
">\n\nFinally someone who understands what is going on here.",
">\n\nGenius",
">\n\nAuto correct typo in my first post! Fixed.\nNot at all supporting suppression of dissent, but there has to be some way to block intentionally slander and misinformation, the hawking of all out lies through garbage like Alex Jones from bending the public discourse, and causing serious social harm. \nParading conspiracy theories or promoting propaganda created by the FSB to destabilize democracy isn't journalism, and isn't news. Legit journalism runs on facts and as such self corrects as better information comes to light. Propaganda either points to a new distraction or digs deeper into a lie, as do its adherents.",
">\n\nNo idea what people are complaining about. Ukraine had pro-Russian politicians in the parliament, russian fake news and pro-russian KGB \"church\" freely acting in Ukraine for years right before the invasion. The real question is why the didn't shut down them long before.",
">\n\nThe Smith act of 1940 comes to mind.\nUkraine is under threat of genocide. Let's see what happens after they win.",
">\n\nWe need to close/block russian or pro-russian websites.",
">\n\nOh no!",
">\n\nI just know its going to be a dark day if news reporters/programs are no longer allowed to make up news and are required to tell the entire story about something. \nSadly if you take away the freedom to blabber from a roof top, you also take away freedom of press",
">\n\nWhy not, news websites are a weapon and can be used by either side.",
">\n\nHmmmm. Interesting",
">\n\nThe beginning of the end",
">\n\nSuch a fascist",
">\n\nChurches next?",
">\n\nAlready",
">\n\nIt's very reasonable to find this offputting, but a ton of westerners are showing their chauvinism in this thread. Acting like any/every NATO country hasn't/wouldn't do this in times of war or great conflict is just asinine, governments pretty much everywhere will regulate whose propaganda is legal and whose isn't. Not saying it's always justified, but many westerners are acting like their shit don't stink.",
">\n\nBaltics and lot of EU countries have banned russian propoganda chanels. I agree with this. Russian propoganda is no joke and i would not recomend it for uninitiated.",
">\n\nThey didn’t ban Russian propaganda channels. Law allows government to block any news website they feel necessary. Given the track record of corruption in Ukrainian governance, this can’t be good.\nEdit: grammar",
">\n\nHaving a standard of what qualifies as news while engaged in a propaganda attack from a country several times your size if propferly monitored information through a board and independent laws could be a net positive\nI’m the USA the repeal of the fairness doctorine is often sited as a reason the news ended up with broadcasters telling people not to take a vaccine during a pandemic",
">\n\nWonder if Zelenskky will be Ukraine's ~~Dictator~~ President in 10 years time.",
">\n\nGet your popcorn while redditors try to tell you why this is a good thing and Zelensky can do no wrong",
">\n\nYikes",
">\n\nUkraine was corrupt as all hell before Russia invaded, and continue corrupt and not worthy of trust. Just because they're fighting for their sovereignty against Putin's evil ass doesn't mean they get a blank check to do whatever the fuck they want and pass it off as correct or for some greater good. This is authoritarian bullshit, nothing else.",
">\n\nIt's quite interesting to see the Zelensky fan boys doing their mental gymnastics to defend this policy. Having a government control what you can see is not good at all: it's a tactic thar has been used by most of the worst rulers in history: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.",
">\n\nI can understand why but honestly I think it’s a very slippery slope that most humans aren’t able to handle. Where’s the line at what is ok and what isn’t. A human decides that and humans are fallible.",
">\n\nThey were right to question this move. I hope the good President/Warrior isn't losing his head. This war is insane.",
">\n\nOne the one hand not too good depending on Implementation. One the other hand the legal framework to go against russian propaganda, misinformation and other Media based attenpts against ukraine.",
">\n\nThere is a lot of anti-Ukraine posts on OP’s profile, take this news with a grain of salt",
">\n\nThe UK blocked Russia Today and Sputnik from UK Satellites to stop their propoganda. It's a sensible thing to do in times of conflict.. we did the same to Nazi Germany also.",
">\n\nI think I just lost all respect for this guy",
">\n\nSecond most corrupt country in Europe (after Russia)... What else do you expect.",
">\n\nTough to balance government overreach against foreign interference.",
">\n\nThat's not good.",
">\n\nDon't pull a \"Russia\" bro. Wrong path to be taking.",
">\n\nYou do realize Russian propaganda channels are there and available to zombify people?\nI have spent so much of my personal time to report Youtube Channel24 videos and you have to show in each video where there is an explicit piece where there was a terrorist speech, it is tedious !! Also, noone seem to read an article cause the content is not like that at all",
">\n\nFor some people (especially here on reddit lmao) russian propaganda is any piece of informations you disagree with, and anyone saying it is either a bot or russian troll",
">\n\nRemember when the Russians invaded claiming there were Nazis in Ukraine?\nPepperidge Farms remembers.",
">\n\nPutin is not the good guy, but this doesn't mean Zelensky and the Ukranian government are a bunch of angels.",
">\n\nHe has cracked down on unions too.",
">\n\nDuring the civil war Lincoln has confederate sympathizing reports thrown in jail without trial. \nThis is not new",
">\n\nSomething seriously off with this man,",
">\n\nI’m sure when peace arrives, and one day Zelenskyy is replaced by a nefarious leader this law will also be remove right? Right?",
">\n\nLol watching this happen in slow motion while supposed lovers of freedom and the Ukrainian people just worship this man, who is an actor and he’s just gradually changing his role.",
">\n\nFreedom of speech? Hahaha, this is no better than Russia or China.",
">\n\nWhat a fucking dishonest headline. Shame on this publisher.",
">\n\nThis is a heck of a misleading headline, the law outlines blatant Russian propaganda sites as the issue. This is almost as bad as the reporting of them “banning orthodox religion” no they banned the orthodox Russian church, that church was using their religion as a cover to transport information back to Russia.",
">\n\nBad idea.",
">\n\nRussian propaganda is no joke and Ukraine probably needs the ability to block it. It's a shame this wasn't passed as wartime emergency legislation with an automatic repeal date though.",
">\n\nNothing to see here, just the good guys fighting against evil Russia 😅",
">\n\nAnd down the slippery slope we continue to slide.",
">\n\nHalf the problem with war now is the media giving g the game away ... there should 100% be restrictions on what the media can post during war time",
">\n\nWell, this headline is awful. First of all we already have such thing since 2015 I believe (one of popular examples is \"vk\" website), secondly - it's just EU standards. \nBtw we still don't have \"war censorship\", you can critisize government all you want.",
">\n\nImagine defending media censorship. China must be proud",
">\n\nRussia does exactly the same thing blocking websites that they consider to be spreading misinformation. And this is obviously bad.\nYet, the amount of double standards in this thread with people thinking that \"it's fine when Ukraine does it\" is absurd.\nBefore the war Ukraine was always on the top positions of most corrupt countries in Europe. This law WILL be abused.",
">\n\nRemember when he said he wanted to run his country more like a democracy…yeah, he just wants those dollars from the U.S",
">\n\nYup this is not the right way to do stuff... If you really wanna show that you are cleaning up the corruptness in your country then don't start making laws like this shit.",
">\n\nVery freedom loving and democratic",
">\n\nNothing says countering russian propaganda like censorship and more propaganda 👍",
">\n\nWatch Ukraine turn into a brutal dictatorship lead by the dancing with the stars jokey guy.",
">\n\nIts the same laws that govern the EU.",
">\n\nWell the corruption continues. “I think it’s good when we do it” Is not a good justification.",
">\n\nDictator for life",
">\n\nIt should only be valid as long as the war against Russia.",
">\n\nRussian \"new\" Websites, which actually are just propaganda machineries, should ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE be blocked.",
">\n\nUkraine has its own propaganda too.",
">\n\nName one nation in a conflict that doesn't censor and put out nationalistic/propaganda. Edited to clarify.",
">\n\nExactly man, that is why I'm saying that censoring is not the right call. Once the government censors you from reading international media, you are influenced by your own government and you know and think only what they want you to know and think. Having trust in your own government is ok but trusting it blindly is not. It makes you easily influenced by your own government,a puppet and as you said, every nation in conflict is making propaganda.",
">\n\nNo different than really any other country that has been in a total war. I just hope that's it's a temporary war measure, which I'm not sure it is.",
">\n\nTotally normal behavior",
">\n\nSounds like news sensorship to me..",
">\n\nHope rises. Discontent rises slightly.\nBeware of the poet's suicide.\nP.s. This is a game reference",
">\n\n1000% normal in war times. Many countries have done this before. It's impossible for Ukraine not to do this given how much Russia is investing into disinformation. Literally having speaker cars driving through the streets with propaganda 24/7. Broadcasting fake news into Ukraine through all mediums. If they get to a large group of people in the US imagine the amount of people they can influence when it comes to their neighbors.\nThe only way they can get Ukraine to lose the war is to break the people's will to fight and they're doing this by not only bombing schools, playgrounds, hospitals and powerplants to freeze them to death but also spreading propaganda to make the people second guess their leadership",
">\n\nCountries do this all the time. Even the US.\nStop trying to vilify Ukraine to appease that shit cabbage Putin. Russia invaded them, not the other way around.",
">\n\nI love watching people try to balance not being called out on ignoring Ukraine's pre-existing corruption and keeping the \"Ukraine = unquestionable good guys\" narrative.\nThere's nothing that says war HAS to be \"good guys vs bad guys\".",
">\n\nPeople have every right to complain about this. But remember Ukraine is fighting in the fields for their very existence.",
">\n\nZelensky understands Democracy more than people think. He's most likely changing it now because of the WAR so that not much information gets back to the enemy.. Remember when Ukraine did both big successful offensives they had a Media Blackout.",
">\n\nOnly state-approved propaganda is authorized",
">\n\nPeople are dumbasses in this thread, and have no idea how propaganda, and filtering media works. There's a reason why propaganda is dangerous, and there are reasons why it's blocked.\nNarrow minded AF.",
">\n\nIn war, certain civil liberties are curtailed. It is this way, it’s always been this way, and it will always be this way. War is not a game. It’s not good that this happens, of course, but it’s one of the many reasons war is bad.",
">\n\nThis definitely isn't suspicious at all",
">\n\nIt’s a standard phenomenon at war time.",
">\n\nOf course he did",
">\n\nWeeeird. Can’t wait to read all the comments somehow blaming this on Russia.",
">\n\nDoesn't sound very Democratic to me, Bob",
">\n\nI wish America would do the same or at least punish journalist & there agencies that promote there views if they are acting in a propagandists manor kinda like Cough 🦊 Cough 🦊",
">\n\nI get why they would want some censorship after the media leaked their military strategy, but I think it should be very limited",
">\n\nSo he is fascist?",
">\n\nyep that's what a dictator does. also take note when russian invaded, they had to scramble to deliver guns to the citizens and were ill prepared. this is what NOT having a 2nd amendment looks like. a complete clusterF"
] |
>
Biden probably gave him the idea | [
"Just curious, how did the US regulate media during WWII if at all? Obviously the war department was churning out war news and propaganda, but did they censor/restrict any media from being published?",
">\n\nYes, absolutely. They formed the Office of Censorship and heavily regulated the press, especially radio. But it was almost entirely geared towards preventing information on troop movements and weather from getting out, and coded enemy messages from getting in. They didn't force stations to broadcast propaganda or ban negative stories, and most of the restrictions were followed voluntarily.\nThere was also the Office of War Information which was responsible for producing propaganda and rejected film scripts that were critical or negative regarding the war effort - but they did not restrict the press to my knowledge.",
">\n\nSuper interesting! Thanks for sharing. Yes it seems this was a bit more functional about what comes in and out of the country, not necessarily with what’s published domestically as far as swaying public opinion. Also TIL the catch phrase “loose lips sink ships” came from this agency.\nThe voluntary aspect is somewhat enlightening as to how unified the country was in the war effort. The cynic in me makes me even more curious if there was other censorship at play outside of this agency that helped create that sentiment. I feel like someone would have replied about some landmark Supreme Court case by now though if that were the case.",
">\n\nAmerican's have a curious ability to get in line when there is a clear and present danger to the nation. Someone summed it up with \"You can always count on American's to do the right thing when they have no other option.\"",
">\n\nWinston Churchill famously stated “Americans will always do the right thing, only after they have tried everything else.\"\nIs that the quote you are thinking of?",
">\n\nIt was attributed to him, but tracing things down, it was apparent not said by him and I’ve heard both versions.",
">\n\nLawmakers have touted the bill as an effort to bring Ukraine's media laws closer to European Union standards as the country makes a bid to join the 27-member bloc. They have also argued that it will help counter Russian propaganda as Russia's invasion of Ukraine nears its one-year anniversary.\nBut organizations representing journalists say the law will erode press freedoms in Ukraine. Under the law, Ukraine's media regulator could block websites that are not registered with the government as news organizations, The Kyiv Independent reported on Friday. \nThe law is at odds with freedoms given to the press in other parts of Europe, the European Federation of Journalists said in a statement on Friday, according to the Times. \nEdit: because some users argued (with justification) that my post kept specific details hidden, I added the rest of the news post. I also checked the Kyiv Independent and it checks out.",
">\n\nWhile this is true, if I'm not mistaken some EU members have still spoken out against the bill - mainly because the new regulatory body will be led/run by the federal government, whereas in the EU they're generally a separate entity from the government run by civilians\nStill a step in the right direction, but I can see where people worry",
">\n\nHow is censorship a right step in any direction?",
">\n\nIt's indeed a double edged sword. On the one hand self-proclaimed news networks might spread their political agenda or incite illegal behaviour, on the other hand it's a real shortcut to control the media. This needs to be handled very carefully and probably by a body that's not interwoven with the government.",
">\n\nThere are few good options in war, especially a total war where the very survival of a country and ethnolinguistic group is at risk. Zelenskyy is probably going a bit far, but it’s hard to really blame him.",
">\n\nDepends on what the censorship is… trying to dispel discontentment with current ruling party or suppressing enemy state misinformation.",
">\n\nI think it's safe to infer the reasoning is to filter propaganda. I don't think there is much discontent with the current ruling party. Zelensky\"s approval ratings have been through the roof. Although, it's an easy power to abuse in the wrong hands.",
">\n\nI mean, can you think of a single instance in history where censorship was a net societal benefit, rolled back when no longer necessary, and not abused over the long-term? Nothing comes to mind.\nJournalists surely also know this to be the case, hence their outspoken opposition to the measure.",
">\n\nAbraham Lincoln suspending habeas corpus in the civil war is probably the best example for Americans in here. Would it be tolerated during peacetime? hell no. Would it be tolerated when the entire country is at an inflection point like the Ukraine is in 2023 and the US in 1861. Yes.\nedit: left out Abe's last name",
">\n\nWhat's it like to be on a first-name basis with Abraham Lincoln?",
">\n\nIt does make sense to block Russian \"news\" channels but its easily open to abuse",
">\n\nThis. Sounds like the Sedition Act of 1917. Easy to pass during wartime and makes sense, but probably wouldn’t get passed during peacetime. \nIt also doesn’t help that Ukraine was like #31 on the world’s corruption index prior to the war.",
">\n\nI vaguely recall reading that prior to the war Ukraine was the second most corrupt country in Europe, behind Russia.",
">\n\nThat's pretty much why Zelensky won the elections, he ran on an anti-corruption platform and has actually done a lot to combat it",
">\n\nLike what?",
">\n\nno more oligarchs",
">\n\nYou really think he ended the oligarchy? And it will only get 100x worse after the war when western businessmen come in to “fix” the country.",
">\n\nLmao this. We should all remember that he was also named in the Panama papers for holding 20+ million overseas",
">\n\nWhats so weird about successful actor having 20million to their name?",
">\n\nThey’ve been blocking the BBC on and off for years.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest lessons the world will learn from this conflict is that while Ukraine is/are the good guys… they are far, far behind a system that is akin to the western world.\nmy father’s grandfather was from Ukraine.\nAs he likes to say, Ukraine had 30 years to get their shit together so that when this day (02/24/22, Russia’s invasion which was always an inevitability if you know Ukraine, Ukraine’s history and geopolitics) arrived they’d be more than just militarily prepared.\nThey would be a part of NATO.. but Ukraine wanted to dip its toes in both democracy and wide-scale corruption.",
">\n\nFrom what I understand, the oligarchs and who grabbed up all the candy when the USSR piñata ruptured have been a big part of the problem. They have lost a lot of power and wealth, and some experts believe that this could create a political space for serious reform. I sure hope so!",
">\n\nExactly not to mention many oligarchs actually own news outlets and even television stations. I get what they’re trying to do given the war, but they have to be careful with the execution of it because it’s a step away from authoritarian control over news and media. News and media should be free but within limits too. Ex. Carlson tucker on Fox News in the US isn’t exactly unbiased. If there was a Ukrainian counterpart, they’d try to shut it down.",
">\n\nA nation in war time does not have the luxury of entertaining 100% freedom of information, especially considering the constant misinformation campaigns waged by Russia on top of its land war.",
">\n\nShutting on and off news websites? Banning political parties? BAWWW TYRANNY.\n\nPeople should not be naive, Ukraine is at war, the survival of their nation is at stake.",
">\n\nPrecisely, and psyops against Ukraine are extremely active.\nI hope they can reach Western values one day, but this is war against a much bigger Country that does not play fair. \nLet's let Ukraine win this war first and give them some time to rebuild before their culture becomes more Western.",
">\n\nHere in Adelaide, Australia, we did that. In the days before websites so he wasn't blocked, but a certain editor knew he wasn't welcome and had to leave town. He was an awful liar and very divisive. Inherited a newspaper from his dad called 'The News'.\nAfter he left town he started a company named after the Adelaide paper, NewsCorp. Rupert Murdoch was the name he went by (though his first name is really Keith, not Rupert). Wonder whatever happened to him?",
">\n\nHe got mad and decided to ruin the world.",
">\n\n\"I think it's good when we do it\" is a dangerous justification",
">\n\nYes, it is very similar to how the freedom of press declined in Russia. All medias were required to be registered by some governmental department in order to \"control the flow of information from abroad\". In no time it became the instrument of banning unwanted media.\nThough I admit banning Russian state media is for the better. Could they be banned in Russia itself, too?",
">\n\nThe thing is who defines that the media is pro-Russian. While it stays for the Ukrainian government to define, Ukrainian freedom of speech basically is being destroyed.",
">\n\nNot really enough information in the article to make an informed opinion on this.\n \nDecision was made by parliament, Zelenskyy's role in this is to sign the law, much like other world leaders don't necessarily agree with everything they have to sign.\nThe article mentions this is to allow them to ban websites not listed as media, which to me means the ability to ban any website if it isn't a registered media website. So, specifically to not allow them to block news websites so long as they are registered.\nAlso mentions this was to try and bring them more in line with EU countries, while at the same time saying it does the opposite.\n \nDo we have a link to the actual text of the new law?",
">\n\nSlippery slope",
">\n\nMost of the west have already blocked RT for their disinformation.",
">\n\nPrivate companies blocking is one thing, but governments is very different.\nA lot of laws created with \"good intentions\" are very often used for bad things, especially in countries with long history of corruption like Ukraine.",
">\n\nFrance is blocking RT",
">\n\nThese things happen during war, in every country.\nThe real test is seeing what laws will be repealed once this is all over imo.",
">\n\n\nThe real test is seeing what laws will be repealed once this is all over\n\nNone of them will be. Governments never voluntarily surrender any measure of control over the people. That's why the US is still officially in a state of national emergency 22 years after 9/11: so that the government elites can keep using their \"temporary\" emergency powers.",
">\n\nThe exact opposite has been happening in a lot of cases. The war has been used as an excuse to carry out a lot of deregulation and liberalization",
">\n\nLike when they banned left wing opposition parties?",
">\n\nArticle says websites not registered as media could be blocked. Kind of the opposite of what the headline says...",
">\n\nGovernments never relinquish power once they have it. Look at how the patriot act went from protecting our country to taking our rights. This is not a slippery slope. This is what corruption looks like. I really want Ukraine to succeed but decisions like this gives me trepidation.",
">\n\nRussia China bans websites \"fascists, ugly despots, violating human rights\" \nsomeone else does it \"understandable, well within their rights, good step\"\nAn accurate portrayal of exceptionalism",
">\n\nPeople have a hard time applying the same logic to things they like.",
">\n\nCool, there is certainly zero propaganda coming out Ukraine, for sure.",
">\n\nHa!",
">\n\nThat sounds like a healthy and not at all a government propaganda machine.",
">\n\nIt’s their country, let ‘em do as they choose. I can understand it during wartime, but in peacetime it sounds like one of those slippery slopes….",
">\n\nConsidering that before the war started everyone was talking about how corrupt the Ukraine government was I'd expect this to be abused for the duration of the war and after.",
">\n\nWestern media can be just as bad at spouting Russian propaganda. It seems like the editors have no ability to disseminate when I see headlines on APNews/Reuters weekly about how \"Putin is ready to negotiate but Ukraine refuses\".",
">\n\nI mean, this Business Insider article is a pretty fantastic case in point:\nare there reasonable concerns about this law? Yup.\nAre there extremely good reasons to pass it regardless, in a state of war against an adversary which thrives off propaganda? Also yes.\nWill Business Insider try and \"both sides\" this to get the \"BWUH 1984\" crowd arguing about their article? Final yes.",
">\n\nWell, Ukraine has never been the democratic heaven that the west is portraying it as in order to feed the propaganda. It's the most corrupt country in Europe and political opposition prior to the invasion was also suppressed.\nOne of Elensky's opposition leaders was in house arrest, although I can't remember his name. I think he escaped after the war started.",
">\n\nFreedom Fighter bans Dissent",
">\n\nThis is never good",
">\n\nYou either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.\n… Or maybe it’s to block Russian propaganda; idk",
">\n\nGovernment controlled media… if anyone thinks this is a good idea then you’re wrong",
">\n\nWhen has censorship ever been on the right side of history?",
">\n\nLincoln infamously censored free speech and the press during the American civil war, and often arrested (without due process!) anyone publishing media opposing the draft or expressing sympathy for the south",
">\n\n\"don't listen to that propaganda, listen to this propaganda\"",
">\n\nAnd so it begins.",
">\n\nI wonder how many pro-working class news outlets will suddenly be removed because they’re critical of Ukraine’s bourgeois government.",
">\n\nThe west is gonna act shocked when this war is over and it turns out Ukraine is still a corrupt place, but saying that makes me pro Russian or some shit",
">\n\nWhat irks me is them saying that being in the EU will supposedly make things better…",
">\n\nAs a country at war, censorship is not surprising. What will be telling is how they behave once the war is over.",
">\n\nSomething a totally not fascist would do, right?",
">\n\nwhen news reporting is killing your soldiers",
">\n\nHe already banned opposing political parties. What’s next?",
">\n\nThey also banned Russian and Rusyn languages schools. Its an ethnostate, simple as.",
">\n\nWar tends to be bad for freedom of speech. The Ukrainian people have a right to hear what pro-Russian media is saying.",
">\n\nAnd yet people claim that this guy is the savior of democracy? Aahahahahah, m'kay.",
">\n\nHonestly this isn't news. Countries are well known for curtailing news reporting during wartime. The US and UK did it during WW2. You don't want news media reporting the location of your troops or movements. \nThe test to democracy isn't what's passed during wartime, it's what's rescinded when war is over. When Ukraine eventually wins, the question will be how well do they transition to functioning, minimally corrupt transparent democracy. Will Zelensky and his successors freely give up power? Will the people elect fascist white nationalists who contributed to the war effort? The future remains to be seen. Well intentions can easily be lead astray.",
">\n\n“Could” is probably doing a lot of work here.",
">\n\nThe problem with that is that it shouldn’t. Laws need to be scoped heavily, or they will be rife with abuse.",
">\n\nSo censorship is suddenly ok because someone that’s not Russia did it.",
">\n\nThe headline sounds terrible. However reading helps add sense to it. \nBut I can't help to wonder whether blocking news websites due to \"weaponized media\" is a good thing or bad thing. I feel there's a gray line here that could be getting crossed and one has to question \"Is this propaganda that's being blocked, or is this our country censoring media brainwashing us in an attempt to strengthen their resolve?\" \nI'm all for Ukraine in this war, but in terms of a country censoring media, it's well.... a sticky subject. What action is the correct action when your enemies are using it as a weapon to confuse the public opinion?",
">\n\nI have no problem with this, RT is blocked in my country and Europe",
">\n\nafaik this is just ukraine setting up a media regulator along EU directives - all countries must have these mechanisms.",
">\n\nEU directives aren’t regulated by the government. Ukraine’s will be",
">\n\nDuring war time, I think that's fine. It's important to minimize Russian propaganda and to make sure no military information gets leaked.",
">\n\nIf the independent regulator can't be trusted during war time, why can it be trusted during peace time?",
">\n\nTo be very clear, this is many steps too far for peacetime and this bill isn't limited to wartime.\nI'm not Ukrainian and not an expert on the bill by any means but placing this under the same umbrella as the ~~federal~~ national government is dangerous and exposes the country to big problems down the road.\nI could defend it if the bill explicitly was for wartime. And many bills have expiration dates. But this is not good.",
">\n\nBut I thought he was about democracy?",
">\n\nGood if it's for the russian news websites only!\nNow, how about Ukraine's president fix that law forbidding romanian language to be taught to the romanian minority in Ukraine?\nAr we good neighbors respecting each other or are we not?",
">\n\nFinally someone who understands what is going on here.",
">\n\nGenius",
">\n\nAuto correct typo in my first post! Fixed.\nNot at all supporting suppression of dissent, but there has to be some way to block intentionally slander and misinformation, the hawking of all out lies through garbage like Alex Jones from bending the public discourse, and causing serious social harm. \nParading conspiracy theories or promoting propaganda created by the FSB to destabilize democracy isn't journalism, and isn't news. Legit journalism runs on facts and as such self corrects as better information comes to light. Propaganda either points to a new distraction or digs deeper into a lie, as do its adherents.",
">\n\nNo idea what people are complaining about. Ukraine had pro-Russian politicians in the parliament, russian fake news and pro-russian KGB \"church\" freely acting in Ukraine for years right before the invasion. The real question is why the didn't shut down them long before.",
">\n\nThe Smith act of 1940 comes to mind.\nUkraine is under threat of genocide. Let's see what happens after they win.",
">\n\nWe need to close/block russian or pro-russian websites.",
">\n\nOh no!",
">\n\nI just know its going to be a dark day if news reporters/programs are no longer allowed to make up news and are required to tell the entire story about something. \nSadly if you take away the freedom to blabber from a roof top, you also take away freedom of press",
">\n\nWhy not, news websites are a weapon and can be used by either side.",
">\n\nHmmmm. Interesting",
">\n\nThe beginning of the end",
">\n\nSuch a fascist",
">\n\nChurches next?",
">\n\nAlready",
">\n\nIt's very reasonable to find this offputting, but a ton of westerners are showing their chauvinism in this thread. Acting like any/every NATO country hasn't/wouldn't do this in times of war or great conflict is just asinine, governments pretty much everywhere will regulate whose propaganda is legal and whose isn't. Not saying it's always justified, but many westerners are acting like their shit don't stink.",
">\n\nBaltics and lot of EU countries have banned russian propoganda chanels. I agree with this. Russian propoganda is no joke and i would not recomend it for uninitiated.",
">\n\nThey didn’t ban Russian propaganda channels. Law allows government to block any news website they feel necessary. Given the track record of corruption in Ukrainian governance, this can’t be good.\nEdit: grammar",
">\n\nHaving a standard of what qualifies as news while engaged in a propaganda attack from a country several times your size if propferly monitored information through a board and independent laws could be a net positive\nI’m the USA the repeal of the fairness doctorine is often sited as a reason the news ended up with broadcasters telling people not to take a vaccine during a pandemic",
">\n\nWonder if Zelenskky will be Ukraine's ~~Dictator~~ President in 10 years time.",
">\n\nGet your popcorn while redditors try to tell you why this is a good thing and Zelensky can do no wrong",
">\n\nYikes",
">\n\nUkraine was corrupt as all hell before Russia invaded, and continue corrupt and not worthy of trust. Just because they're fighting for their sovereignty against Putin's evil ass doesn't mean they get a blank check to do whatever the fuck they want and pass it off as correct or for some greater good. This is authoritarian bullshit, nothing else.",
">\n\nIt's quite interesting to see the Zelensky fan boys doing their mental gymnastics to defend this policy. Having a government control what you can see is not good at all: it's a tactic thar has been used by most of the worst rulers in history: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.",
">\n\nI can understand why but honestly I think it’s a very slippery slope that most humans aren’t able to handle. Where’s the line at what is ok and what isn’t. A human decides that and humans are fallible.",
">\n\nThey were right to question this move. I hope the good President/Warrior isn't losing his head. This war is insane.",
">\n\nOne the one hand not too good depending on Implementation. One the other hand the legal framework to go against russian propaganda, misinformation and other Media based attenpts against ukraine.",
">\n\nThere is a lot of anti-Ukraine posts on OP’s profile, take this news with a grain of salt",
">\n\nThe UK blocked Russia Today and Sputnik from UK Satellites to stop their propoganda. It's a sensible thing to do in times of conflict.. we did the same to Nazi Germany also.",
">\n\nI think I just lost all respect for this guy",
">\n\nSecond most corrupt country in Europe (after Russia)... What else do you expect.",
">\n\nTough to balance government overreach against foreign interference.",
">\n\nThat's not good.",
">\n\nDon't pull a \"Russia\" bro. Wrong path to be taking.",
">\n\nYou do realize Russian propaganda channels are there and available to zombify people?\nI have spent so much of my personal time to report Youtube Channel24 videos and you have to show in each video where there is an explicit piece where there was a terrorist speech, it is tedious !! Also, noone seem to read an article cause the content is not like that at all",
">\n\nFor some people (especially here on reddit lmao) russian propaganda is any piece of informations you disagree with, and anyone saying it is either a bot or russian troll",
">\n\nRemember when the Russians invaded claiming there were Nazis in Ukraine?\nPepperidge Farms remembers.",
">\n\nPutin is not the good guy, but this doesn't mean Zelensky and the Ukranian government are a bunch of angels.",
">\n\nHe has cracked down on unions too.",
">\n\nDuring the civil war Lincoln has confederate sympathizing reports thrown in jail without trial. \nThis is not new",
">\n\nSomething seriously off with this man,",
">\n\nI’m sure when peace arrives, and one day Zelenskyy is replaced by a nefarious leader this law will also be remove right? Right?",
">\n\nLol watching this happen in slow motion while supposed lovers of freedom and the Ukrainian people just worship this man, who is an actor and he’s just gradually changing his role.",
">\n\nFreedom of speech? Hahaha, this is no better than Russia or China.",
">\n\nWhat a fucking dishonest headline. Shame on this publisher.",
">\n\nThis is a heck of a misleading headline, the law outlines blatant Russian propaganda sites as the issue. This is almost as bad as the reporting of them “banning orthodox religion” no they banned the orthodox Russian church, that church was using their religion as a cover to transport information back to Russia.",
">\n\nBad idea.",
">\n\nRussian propaganda is no joke and Ukraine probably needs the ability to block it. It's a shame this wasn't passed as wartime emergency legislation with an automatic repeal date though.",
">\n\nNothing to see here, just the good guys fighting against evil Russia 😅",
">\n\nAnd down the slippery slope we continue to slide.",
">\n\nHalf the problem with war now is the media giving g the game away ... there should 100% be restrictions on what the media can post during war time",
">\n\nWell, this headline is awful. First of all we already have such thing since 2015 I believe (one of popular examples is \"vk\" website), secondly - it's just EU standards. \nBtw we still don't have \"war censorship\", you can critisize government all you want.",
">\n\nImagine defending media censorship. China must be proud",
">\n\nRussia does exactly the same thing blocking websites that they consider to be spreading misinformation. And this is obviously bad.\nYet, the amount of double standards in this thread with people thinking that \"it's fine when Ukraine does it\" is absurd.\nBefore the war Ukraine was always on the top positions of most corrupt countries in Europe. This law WILL be abused.",
">\n\nRemember when he said he wanted to run his country more like a democracy…yeah, he just wants those dollars from the U.S",
">\n\nYup this is not the right way to do stuff... If you really wanna show that you are cleaning up the corruptness in your country then don't start making laws like this shit.",
">\n\nVery freedom loving and democratic",
">\n\nNothing says countering russian propaganda like censorship and more propaganda 👍",
">\n\nWatch Ukraine turn into a brutal dictatorship lead by the dancing with the stars jokey guy.",
">\n\nIts the same laws that govern the EU.",
">\n\nWell the corruption continues. “I think it’s good when we do it” Is not a good justification.",
">\n\nDictator for life",
">\n\nIt should only be valid as long as the war against Russia.",
">\n\nRussian \"new\" Websites, which actually are just propaganda machineries, should ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE be blocked.",
">\n\nUkraine has its own propaganda too.",
">\n\nName one nation in a conflict that doesn't censor and put out nationalistic/propaganda. Edited to clarify.",
">\n\nExactly man, that is why I'm saying that censoring is not the right call. Once the government censors you from reading international media, you are influenced by your own government and you know and think only what they want you to know and think. Having trust in your own government is ok but trusting it blindly is not. It makes you easily influenced by your own government,a puppet and as you said, every nation in conflict is making propaganda.",
">\n\nNo different than really any other country that has been in a total war. I just hope that's it's a temporary war measure, which I'm not sure it is.",
">\n\nTotally normal behavior",
">\n\nSounds like news sensorship to me..",
">\n\nHope rises. Discontent rises slightly.\nBeware of the poet's suicide.\nP.s. This is a game reference",
">\n\n1000% normal in war times. Many countries have done this before. It's impossible for Ukraine not to do this given how much Russia is investing into disinformation. Literally having speaker cars driving through the streets with propaganda 24/7. Broadcasting fake news into Ukraine through all mediums. If they get to a large group of people in the US imagine the amount of people they can influence when it comes to their neighbors.\nThe only way they can get Ukraine to lose the war is to break the people's will to fight and they're doing this by not only bombing schools, playgrounds, hospitals and powerplants to freeze them to death but also spreading propaganda to make the people second guess their leadership",
">\n\nCountries do this all the time. Even the US.\nStop trying to vilify Ukraine to appease that shit cabbage Putin. Russia invaded them, not the other way around.",
">\n\nI love watching people try to balance not being called out on ignoring Ukraine's pre-existing corruption and keeping the \"Ukraine = unquestionable good guys\" narrative.\nThere's nothing that says war HAS to be \"good guys vs bad guys\".",
">\n\nPeople have every right to complain about this. But remember Ukraine is fighting in the fields for their very existence.",
">\n\nZelensky understands Democracy more than people think. He's most likely changing it now because of the WAR so that not much information gets back to the enemy.. Remember when Ukraine did both big successful offensives they had a Media Blackout.",
">\n\nOnly state-approved propaganda is authorized",
">\n\nPeople are dumbasses in this thread, and have no idea how propaganda, and filtering media works. There's a reason why propaganda is dangerous, and there are reasons why it's blocked.\nNarrow minded AF.",
">\n\nIn war, certain civil liberties are curtailed. It is this way, it’s always been this way, and it will always be this way. War is not a game. It’s not good that this happens, of course, but it’s one of the many reasons war is bad.",
">\n\nThis definitely isn't suspicious at all",
">\n\nIt’s a standard phenomenon at war time.",
">\n\nOf course he did",
">\n\nWeeeird. Can’t wait to read all the comments somehow blaming this on Russia.",
">\n\nDoesn't sound very Democratic to me, Bob",
">\n\nI wish America would do the same or at least punish journalist & there agencies that promote there views if they are acting in a propagandists manor kinda like Cough 🦊 Cough 🦊",
">\n\nI get why they would want some censorship after the media leaked their military strategy, but I think it should be very limited",
">\n\nSo he is fascist?",
">\n\nyep that's what a dictator does. also take note when russian invaded, they had to scramble to deliver guns to the citizens and were ill prepared. this is what NOT having a 2nd amendment looks like. a complete clusterF",
">\n\nUh oh"
] |
>
He's been silencing dissenting voices for some time now nothing new, except now he's a genuine dictator. | [
"Just curious, how did the US regulate media during WWII if at all? Obviously the war department was churning out war news and propaganda, but did they censor/restrict any media from being published?",
">\n\nYes, absolutely. They formed the Office of Censorship and heavily regulated the press, especially radio. But it was almost entirely geared towards preventing information on troop movements and weather from getting out, and coded enemy messages from getting in. They didn't force stations to broadcast propaganda or ban negative stories, and most of the restrictions were followed voluntarily.\nThere was also the Office of War Information which was responsible for producing propaganda and rejected film scripts that were critical or negative regarding the war effort - but they did not restrict the press to my knowledge.",
">\n\nSuper interesting! Thanks for sharing. Yes it seems this was a bit more functional about what comes in and out of the country, not necessarily with what’s published domestically as far as swaying public opinion. Also TIL the catch phrase “loose lips sink ships” came from this agency.\nThe voluntary aspect is somewhat enlightening as to how unified the country was in the war effort. The cynic in me makes me even more curious if there was other censorship at play outside of this agency that helped create that sentiment. I feel like someone would have replied about some landmark Supreme Court case by now though if that were the case.",
">\n\nAmerican's have a curious ability to get in line when there is a clear and present danger to the nation. Someone summed it up with \"You can always count on American's to do the right thing when they have no other option.\"",
">\n\nWinston Churchill famously stated “Americans will always do the right thing, only after they have tried everything else.\"\nIs that the quote you are thinking of?",
">\n\nIt was attributed to him, but tracing things down, it was apparent not said by him and I’ve heard both versions.",
">\n\nLawmakers have touted the bill as an effort to bring Ukraine's media laws closer to European Union standards as the country makes a bid to join the 27-member bloc. They have also argued that it will help counter Russian propaganda as Russia's invasion of Ukraine nears its one-year anniversary.\nBut organizations representing journalists say the law will erode press freedoms in Ukraine. Under the law, Ukraine's media regulator could block websites that are not registered with the government as news organizations, The Kyiv Independent reported on Friday. \nThe law is at odds with freedoms given to the press in other parts of Europe, the European Federation of Journalists said in a statement on Friday, according to the Times. \nEdit: because some users argued (with justification) that my post kept specific details hidden, I added the rest of the news post. I also checked the Kyiv Independent and it checks out.",
">\n\nWhile this is true, if I'm not mistaken some EU members have still spoken out against the bill - mainly because the new regulatory body will be led/run by the federal government, whereas in the EU they're generally a separate entity from the government run by civilians\nStill a step in the right direction, but I can see where people worry",
">\n\nHow is censorship a right step in any direction?",
">\n\nIt's indeed a double edged sword. On the one hand self-proclaimed news networks might spread their political agenda or incite illegal behaviour, on the other hand it's a real shortcut to control the media. This needs to be handled very carefully and probably by a body that's not interwoven with the government.",
">\n\nThere are few good options in war, especially a total war where the very survival of a country and ethnolinguistic group is at risk. Zelenskyy is probably going a bit far, but it’s hard to really blame him.",
">\n\nDepends on what the censorship is… trying to dispel discontentment with current ruling party or suppressing enemy state misinformation.",
">\n\nI think it's safe to infer the reasoning is to filter propaganda. I don't think there is much discontent with the current ruling party. Zelensky\"s approval ratings have been through the roof. Although, it's an easy power to abuse in the wrong hands.",
">\n\nI mean, can you think of a single instance in history where censorship was a net societal benefit, rolled back when no longer necessary, and not abused over the long-term? Nothing comes to mind.\nJournalists surely also know this to be the case, hence their outspoken opposition to the measure.",
">\n\nAbraham Lincoln suspending habeas corpus in the civil war is probably the best example for Americans in here. Would it be tolerated during peacetime? hell no. Would it be tolerated when the entire country is at an inflection point like the Ukraine is in 2023 and the US in 1861. Yes.\nedit: left out Abe's last name",
">\n\nWhat's it like to be on a first-name basis with Abraham Lincoln?",
">\n\nIt does make sense to block Russian \"news\" channels but its easily open to abuse",
">\n\nThis. Sounds like the Sedition Act of 1917. Easy to pass during wartime and makes sense, but probably wouldn’t get passed during peacetime. \nIt also doesn’t help that Ukraine was like #31 on the world’s corruption index prior to the war.",
">\n\nI vaguely recall reading that prior to the war Ukraine was the second most corrupt country in Europe, behind Russia.",
">\n\nThat's pretty much why Zelensky won the elections, he ran on an anti-corruption platform and has actually done a lot to combat it",
">\n\nLike what?",
">\n\nno more oligarchs",
">\n\nYou really think he ended the oligarchy? And it will only get 100x worse after the war when western businessmen come in to “fix” the country.",
">\n\nLmao this. We should all remember that he was also named in the Panama papers for holding 20+ million overseas",
">\n\nWhats so weird about successful actor having 20million to their name?",
">\n\nThey’ve been blocking the BBC on and off for years.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest lessons the world will learn from this conflict is that while Ukraine is/are the good guys… they are far, far behind a system that is akin to the western world.\nmy father’s grandfather was from Ukraine.\nAs he likes to say, Ukraine had 30 years to get their shit together so that when this day (02/24/22, Russia’s invasion which was always an inevitability if you know Ukraine, Ukraine’s history and geopolitics) arrived they’d be more than just militarily prepared.\nThey would be a part of NATO.. but Ukraine wanted to dip its toes in both democracy and wide-scale corruption.",
">\n\nFrom what I understand, the oligarchs and who grabbed up all the candy when the USSR piñata ruptured have been a big part of the problem. They have lost a lot of power and wealth, and some experts believe that this could create a political space for serious reform. I sure hope so!",
">\n\nExactly not to mention many oligarchs actually own news outlets and even television stations. I get what they’re trying to do given the war, but they have to be careful with the execution of it because it’s a step away from authoritarian control over news and media. News and media should be free but within limits too. Ex. Carlson tucker on Fox News in the US isn’t exactly unbiased. If there was a Ukrainian counterpart, they’d try to shut it down.",
">\n\nA nation in war time does not have the luxury of entertaining 100% freedom of information, especially considering the constant misinformation campaigns waged by Russia on top of its land war.",
">\n\nShutting on and off news websites? Banning political parties? BAWWW TYRANNY.\n\nPeople should not be naive, Ukraine is at war, the survival of their nation is at stake.",
">\n\nPrecisely, and psyops against Ukraine are extremely active.\nI hope they can reach Western values one day, but this is war against a much bigger Country that does not play fair. \nLet's let Ukraine win this war first and give them some time to rebuild before their culture becomes more Western.",
">\n\nHere in Adelaide, Australia, we did that. In the days before websites so he wasn't blocked, but a certain editor knew he wasn't welcome and had to leave town. He was an awful liar and very divisive. Inherited a newspaper from his dad called 'The News'.\nAfter he left town he started a company named after the Adelaide paper, NewsCorp. Rupert Murdoch was the name he went by (though his first name is really Keith, not Rupert). Wonder whatever happened to him?",
">\n\nHe got mad and decided to ruin the world.",
">\n\n\"I think it's good when we do it\" is a dangerous justification",
">\n\nYes, it is very similar to how the freedom of press declined in Russia. All medias were required to be registered by some governmental department in order to \"control the flow of information from abroad\". In no time it became the instrument of banning unwanted media.\nThough I admit banning Russian state media is for the better. Could they be banned in Russia itself, too?",
">\n\nThe thing is who defines that the media is pro-Russian. While it stays for the Ukrainian government to define, Ukrainian freedom of speech basically is being destroyed.",
">\n\nNot really enough information in the article to make an informed opinion on this.\n \nDecision was made by parliament, Zelenskyy's role in this is to sign the law, much like other world leaders don't necessarily agree with everything they have to sign.\nThe article mentions this is to allow them to ban websites not listed as media, which to me means the ability to ban any website if it isn't a registered media website. So, specifically to not allow them to block news websites so long as they are registered.\nAlso mentions this was to try and bring them more in line with EU countries, while at the same time saying it does the opposite.\n \nDo we have a link to the actual text of the new law?",
">\n\nSlippery slope",
">\n\nMost of the west have already blocked RT for their disinformation.",
">\n\nPrivate companies blocking is one thing, but governments is very different.\nA lot of laws created with \"good intentions\" are very often used for bad things, especially in countries with long history of corruption like Ukraine.",
">\n\nFrance is blocking RT",
">\n\nThese things happen during war, in every country.\nThe real test is seeing what laws will be repealed once this is all over imo.",
">\n\n\nThe real test is seeing what laws will be repealed once this is all over\n\nNone of them will be. Governments never voluntarily surrender any measure of control over the people. That's why the US is still officially in a state of national emergency 22 years after 9/11: so that the government elites can keep using their \"temporary\" emergency powers.",
">\n\nThe exact opposite has been happening in a lot of cases. The war has been used as an excuse to carry out a lot of deregulation and liberalization",
">\n\nLike when they banned left wing opposition parties?",
">\n\nArticle says websites not registered as media could be blocked. Kind of the opposite of what the headline says...",
">\n\nGovernments never relinquish power once they have it. Look at how the patriot act went from protecting our country to taking our rights. This is not a slippery slope. This is what corruption looks like. I really want Ukraine to succeed but decisions like this gives me trepidation.",
">\n\nRussia China bans websites \"fascists, ugly despots, violating human rights\" \nsomeone else does it \"understandable, well within their rights, good step\"\nAn accurate portrayal of exceptionalism",
">\n\nPeople have a hard time applying the same logic to things they like.",
">\n\nCool, there is certainly zero propaganda coming out Ukraine, for sure.",
">\n\nHa!",
">\n\nThat sounds like a healthy and not at all a government propaganda machine.",
">\n\nIt’s their country, let ‘em do as they choose. I can understand it during wartime, but in peacetime it sounds like one of those slippery slopes….",
">\n\nConsidering that before the war started everyone was talking about how corrupt the Ukraine government was I'd expect this to be abused for the duration of the war and after.",
">\n\nWestern media can be just as bad at spouting Russian propaganda. It seems like the editors have no ability to disseminate when I see headlines on APNews/Reuters weekly about how \"Putin is ready to negotiate but Ukraine refuses\".",
">\n\nI mean, this Business Insider article is a pretty fantastic case in point:\nare there reasonable concerns about this law? Yup.\nAre there extremely good reasons to pass it regardless, in a state of war against an adversary which thrives off propaganda? Also yes.\nWill Business Insider try and \"both sides\" this to get the \"BWUH 1984\" crowd arguing about their article? Final yes.",
">\n\nWell, Ukraine has never been the democratic heaven that the west is portraying it as in order to feed the propaganda. It's the most corrupt country in Europe and political opposition prior to the invasion was also suppressed.\nOne of Elensky's opposition leaders was in house arrest, although I can't remember his name. I think he escaped after the war started.",
">\n\nFreedom Fighter bans Dissent",
">\n\nThis is never good",
">\n\nYou either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.\n… Or maybe it’s to block Russian propaganda; idk",
">\n\nGovernment controlled media… if anyone thinks this is a good idea then you’re wrong",
">\n\nWhen has censorship ever been on the right side of history?",
">\n\nLincoln infamously censored free speech and the press during the American civil war, and often arrested (without due process!) anyone publishing media opposing the draft or expressing sympathy for the south",
">\n\n\"don't listen to that propaganda, listen to this propaganda\"",
">\n\nAnd so it begins.",
">\n\nI wonder how many pro-working class news outlets will suddenly be removed because they’re critical of Ukraine’s bourgeois government.",
">\n\nThe west is gonna act shocked when this war is over and it turns out Ukraine is still a corrupt place, but saying that makes me pro Russian or some shit",
">\n\nWhat irks me is them saying that being in the EU will supposedly make things better…",
">\n\nAs a country at war, censorship is not surprising. What will be telling is how they behave once the war is over.",
">\n\nSomething a totally not fascist would do, right?",
">\n\nwhen news reporting is killing your soldiers",
">\n\nHe already banned opposing political parties. What’s next?",
">\n\nThey also banned Russian and Rusyn languages schools. Its an ethnostate, simple as.",
">\n\nWar tends to be bad for freedom of speech. The Ukrainian people have a right to hear what pro-Russian media is saying.",
">\n\nAnd yet people claim that this guy is the savior of democracy? Aahahahahah, m'kay.",
">\n\nHonestly this isn't news. Countries are well known for curtailing news reporting during wartime. The US and UK did it during WW2. You don't want news media reporting the location of your troops or movements. \nThe test to democracy isn't what's passed during wartime, it's what's rescinded when war is over. When Ukraine eventually wins, the question will be how well do they transition to functioning, minimally corrupt transparent democracy. Will Zelensky and his successors freely give up power? Will the people elect fascist white nationalists who contributed to the war effort? The future remains to be seen. Well intentions can easily be lead astray.",
">\n\n“Could” is probably doing a lot of work here.",
">\n\nThe problem with that is that it shouldn’t. Laws need to be scoped heavily, or they will be rife with abuse.",
">\n\nSo censorship is suddenly ok because someone that’s not Russia did it.",
">\n\nThe headline sounds terrible. However reading helps add sense to it. \nBut I can't help to wonder whether blocking news websites due to \"weaponized media\" is a good thing or bad thing. I feel there's a gray line here that could be getting crossed and one has to question \"Is this propaganda that's being blocked, or is this our country censoring media brainwashing us in an attempt to strengthen their resolve?\" \nI'm all for Ukraine in this war, but in terms of a country censoring media, it's well.... a sticky subject. What action is the correct action when your enemies are using it as a weapon to confuse the public opinion?",
">\n\nI have no problem with this, RT is blocked in my country and Europe",
">\n\nafaik this is just ukraine setting up a media regulator along EU directives - all countries must have these mechanisms.",
">\n\nEU directives aren’t regulated by the government. Ukraine’s will be",
">\n\nDuring war time, I think that's fine. It's important to minimize Russian propaganda and to make sure no military information gets leaked.",
">\n\nIf the independent regulator can't be trusted during war time, why can it be trusted during peace time?",
">\n\nTo be very clear, this is many steps too far for peacetime and this bill isn't limited to wartime.\nI'm not Ukrainian and not an expert on the bill by any means but placing this under the same umbrella as the ~~federal~~ national government is dangerous and exposes the country to big problems down the road.\nI could defend it if the bill explicitly was for wartime. And many bills have expiration dates. But this is not good.",
">\n\nBut I thought he was about democracy?",
">\n\nGood if it's for the russian news websites only!\nNow, how about Ukraine's president fix that law forbidding romanian language to be taught to the romanian minority in Ukraine?\nAr we good neighbors respecting each other or are we not?",
">\n\nFinally someone who understands what is going on here.",
">\n\nGenius",
">\n\nAuto correct typo in my first post! Fixed.\nNot at all supporting suppression of dissent, but there has to be some way to block intentionally slander and misinformation, the hawking of all out lies through garbage like Alex Jones from bending the public discourse, and causing serious social harm. \nParading conspiracy theories or promoting propaganda created by the FSB to destabilize democracy isn't journalism, and isn't news. Legit journalism runs on facts and as such self corrects as better information comes to light. Propaganda either points to a new distraction or digs deeper into a lie, as do its adherents.",
">\n\nNo idea what people are complaining about. Ukraine had pro-Russian politicians in the parliament, russian fake news and pro-russian KGB \"church\" freely acting in Ukraine for years right before the invasion. The real question is why the didn't shut down them long before.",
">\n\nThe Smith act of 1940 comes to mind.\nUkraine is under threat of genocide. Let's see what happens after they win.",
">\n\nWe need to close/block russian or pro-russian websites.",
">\n\nOh no!",
">\n\nI just know its going to be a dark day if news reporters/programs are no longer allowed to make up news and are required to tell the entire story about something. \nSadly if you take away the freedom to blabber from a roof top, you also take away freedom of press",
">\n\nWhy not, news websites are a weapon and can be used by either side.",
">\n\nHmmmm. Interesting",
">\n\nThe beginning of the end",
">\n\nSuch a fascist",
">\n\nChurches next?",
">\n\nAlready",
">\n\nIt's very reasonable to find this offputting, but a ton of westerners are showing their chauvinism in this thread. Acting like any/every NATO country hasn't/wouldn't do this in times of war or great conflict is just asinine, governments pretty much everywhere will regulate whose propaganda is legal and whose isn't. Not saying it's always justified, but many westerners are acting like their shit don't stink.",
">\n\nBaltics and lot of EU countries have banned russian propoganda chanels. I agree with this. Russian propoganda is no joke and i would not recomend it for uninitiated.",
">\n\nThey didn’t ban Russian propaganda channels. Law allows government to block any news website they feel necessary. Given the track record of corruption in Ukrainian governance, this can’t be good.\nEdit: grammar",
">\n\nHaving a standard of what qualifies as news while engaged in a propaganda attack from a country several times your size if propferly monitored information through a board and independent laws could be a net positive\nI’m the USA the repeal of the fairness doctorine is often sited as a reason the news ended up with broadcasters telling people not to take a vaccine during a pandemic",
">\n\nWonder if Zelenskky will be Ukraine's ~~Dictator~~ President in 10 years time.",
">\n\nGet your popcorn while redditors try to tell you why this is a good thing and Zelensky can do no wrong",
">\n\nYikes",
">\n\nUkraine was corrupt as all hell before Russia invaded, and continue corrupt and not worthy of trust. Just because they're fighting for their sovereignty against Putin's evil ass doesn't mean they get a blank check to do whatever the fuck they want and pass it off as correct or for some greater good. This is authoritarian bullshit, nothing else.",
">\n\nIt's quite interesting to see the Zelensky fan boys doing their mental gymnastics to defend this policy. Having a government control what you can see is not good at all: it's a tactic thar has been used by most of the worst rulers in history: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.",
">\n\nI can understand why but honestly I think it’s a very slippery slope that most humans aren’t able to handle. Where’s the line at what is ok and what isn’t. A human decides that and humans are fallible.",
">\n\nThey were right to question this move. I hope the good President/Warrior isn't losing his head. This war is insane.",
">\n\nOne the one hand not too good depending on Implementation. One the other hand the legal framework to go against russian propaganda, misinformation and other Media based attenpts against ukraine.",
">\n\nThere is a lot of anti-Ukraine posts on OP’s profile, take this news with a grain of salt",
">\n\nThe UK blocked Russia Today and Sputnik from UK Satellites to stop their propoganda. It's a sensible thing to do in times of conflict.. we did the same to Nazi Germany also.",
">\n\nI think I just lost all respect for this guy",
">\n\nSecond most corrupt country in Europe (after Russia)... What else do you expect.",
">\n\nTough to balance government overreach against foreign interference.",
">\n\nThat's not good.",
">\n\nDon't pull a \"Russia\" bro. Wrong path to be taking.",
">\n\nYou do realize Russian propaganda channels are there and available to zombify people?\nI have spent so much of my personal time to report Youtube Channel24 videos and you have to show in each video where there is an explicit piece where there was a terrorist speech, it is tedious !! Also, noone seem to read an article cause the content is not like that at all",
">\n\nFor some people (especially here on reddit lmao) russian propaganda is any piece of informations you disagree with, and anyone saying it is either a bot or russian troll",
">\n\nRemember when the Russians invaded claiming there were Nazis in Ukraine?\nPepperidge Farms remembers.",
">\n\nPutin is not the good guy, but this doesn't mean Zelensky and the Ukranian government are a bunch of angels.",
">\n\nHe has cracked down on unions too.",
">\n\nDuring the civil war Lincoln has confederate sympathizing reports thrown in jail without trial. \nThis is not new",
">\n\nSomething seriously off with this man,",
">\n\nI’m sure when peace arrives, and one day Zelenskyy is replaced by a nefarious leader this law will also be remove right? Right?",
">\n\nLol watching this happen in slow motion while supposed lovers of freedom and the Ukrainian people just worship this man, who is an actor and he’s just gradually changing his role.",
">\n\nFreedom of speech? Hahaha, this is no better than Russia or China.",
">\n\nWhat a fucking dishonest headline. Shame on this publisher.",
">\n\nThis is a heck of a misleading headline, the law outlines blatant Russian propaganda sites as the issue. This is almost as bad as the reporting of them “banning orthodox religion” no they banned the orthodox Russian church, that church was using their religion as a cover to transport information back to Russia.",
">\n\nBad idea.",
">\n\nRussian propaganda is no joke and Ukraine probably needs the ability to block it. It's a shame this wasn't passed as wartime emergency legislation with an automatic repeal date though.",
">\n\nNothing to see here, just the good guys fighting against evil Russia 😅",
">\n\nAnd down the slippery slope we continue to slide.",
">\n\nHalf the problem with war now is the media giving g the game away ... there should 100% be restrictions on what the media can post during war time",
">\n\nWell, this headline is awful. First of all we already have such thing since 2015 I believe (one of popular examples is \"vk\" website), secondly - it's just EU standards. \nBtw we still don't have \"war censorship\", you can critisize government all you want.",
">\n\nImagine defending media censorship. China must be proud",
">\n\nRussia does exactly the same thing blocking websites that they consider to be spreading misinformation. And this is obviously bad.\nYet, the amount of double standards in this thread with people thinking that \"it's fine when Ukraine does it\" is absurd.\nBefore the war Ukraine was always on the top positions of most corrupt countries in Europe. This law WILL be abused.",
">\n\nRemember when he said he wanted to run his country more like a democracy…yeah, he just wants those dollars from the U.S",
">\n\nYup this is not the right way to do stuff... If you really wanna show that you are cleaning up the corruptness in your country then don't start making laws like this shit.",
">\n\nVery freedom loving and democratic",
">\n\nNothing says countering russian propaganda like censorship and more propaganda 👍",
">\n\nWatch Ukraine turn into a brutal dictatorship lead by the dancing with the stars jokey guy.",
">\n\nIts the same laws that govern the EU.",
">\n\nWell the corruption continues. “I think it’s good when we do it” Is not a good justification.",
">\n\nDictator for life",
">\n\nIt should only be valid as long as the war against Russia.",
">\n\nRussian \"new\" Websites, which actually are just propaganda machineries, should ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE be blocked.",
">\n\nUkraine has its own propaganda too.",
">\n\nName one nation in a conflict that doesn't censor and put out nationalistic/propaganda. Edited to clarify.",
">\n\nExactly man, that is why I'm saying that censoring is not the right call. Once the government censors you from reading international media, you are influenced by your own government and you know and think only what they want you to know and think. Having trust in your own government is ok but trusting it blindly is not. It makes you easily influenced by your own government,a puppet and as you said, every nation in conflict is making propaganda.",
">\n\nNo different than really any other country that has been in a total war. I just hope that's it's a temporary war measure, which I'm not sure it is.",
">\n\nTotally normal behavior",
">\n\nSounds like news sensorship to me..",
">\n\nHope rises. Discontent rises slightly.\nBeware of the poet's suicide.\nP.s. This is a game reference",
">\n\n1000% normal in war times. Many countries have done this before. It's impossible for Ukraine not to do this given how much Russia is investing into disinformation. Literally having speaker cars driving through the streets with propaganda 24/7. Broadcasting fake news into Ukraine through all mediums. If they get to a large group of people in the US imagine the amount of people they can influence when it comes to their neighbors.\nThe only way they can get Ukraine to lose the war is to break the people's will to fight and they're doing this by not only bombing schools, playgrounds, hospitals and powerplants to freeze them to death but also spreading propaganda to make the people second guess their leadership",
">\n\nCountries do this all the time. Even the US.\nStop trying to vilify Ukraine to appease that shit cabbage Putin. Russia invaded them, not the other way around.",
">\n\nI love watching people try to balance not being called out on ignoring Ukraine's pre-existing corruption and keeping the \"Ukraine = unquestionable good guys\" narrative.\nThere's nothing that says war HAS to be \"good guys vs bad guys\".",
">\n\nPeople have every right to complain about this. But remember Ukraine is fighting in the fields for their very existence.",
">\n\nZelensky understands Democracy more than people think. He's most likely changing it now because of the WAR so that not much information gets back to the enemy.. Remember when Ukraine did both big successful offensives they had a Media Blackout.",
">\n\nOnly state-approved propaganda is authorized",
">\n\nPeople are dumbasses in this thread, and have no idea how propaganda, and filtering media works. There's a reason why propaganda is dangerous, and there are reasons why it's blocked.\nNarrow minded AF.",
">\n\nIn war, certain civil liberties are curtailed. It is this way, it’s always been this way, and it will always be this way. War is not a game. It’s not good that this happens, of course, but it’s one of the many reasons war is bad.",
">\n\nThis definitely isn't suspicious at all",
">\n\nIt’s a standard phenomenon at war time.",
">\n\nOf course he did",
">\n\nWeeeird. Can’t wait to read all the comments somehow blaming this on Russia.",
">\n\nDoesn't sound very Democratic to me, Bob",
">\n\nI wish America would do the same or at least punish journalist & there agencies that promote there views if they are acting in a propagandists manor kinda like Cough 🦊 Cough 🦊",
">\n\nI get why they would want some censorship after the media leaked their military strategy, but I think it should be very limited",
">\n\nSo he is fascist?",
">\n\nyep that's what a dictator does. also take note when russian invaded, they had to scramble to deliver guns to the citizens and were ill prepared. this is what NOT having a 2nd amendment looks like. a complete clusterF",
">\n\nUh oh",
">\n\nBiden probably gave him the idea"
] |
>
So you mean to tell me that all this money the United States is sending to Ukraine isn’t really to save democracy? Didn’t see that coming. | [
"Just curious, how did the US regulate media during WWII if at all? Obviously the war department was churning out war news and propaganda, but did they censor/restrict any media from being published?",
">\n\nYes, absolutely. They formed the Office of Censorship and heavily regulated the press, especially radio. But it was almost entirely geared towards preventing information on troop movements and weather from getting out, and coded enemy messages from getting in. They didn't force stations to broadcast propaganda or ban negative stories, and most of the restrictions were followed voluntarily.\nThere was also the Office of War Information which was responsible for producing propaganda and rejected film scripts that were critical or negative regarding the war effort - but they did not restrict the press to my knowledge.",
">\n\nSuper interesting! Thanks for sharing. Yes it seems this was a bit more functional about what comes in and out of the country, not necessarily with what’s published domestically as far as swaying public opinion. Also TIL the catch phrase “loose lips sink ships” came from this agency.\nThe voluntary aspect is somewhat enlightening as to how unified the country was in the war effort. The cynic in me makes me even more curious if there was other censorship at play outside of this agency that helped create that sentiment. I feel like someone would have replied about some landmark Supreme Court case by now though if that were the case.",
">\n\nAmerican's have a curious ability to get in line when there is a clear and present danger to the nation. Someone summed it up with \"You can always count on American's to do the right thing when they have no other option.\"",
">\n\nWinston Churchill famously stated “Americans will always do the right thing, only after they have tried everything else.\"\nIs that the quote you are thinking of?",
">\n\nIt was attributed to him, but tracing things down, it was apparent not said by him and I’ve heard both versions.",
">\n\nLawmakers have touted the bill as an effort to bring Ukraine's media laws closer to European Union standards as the country makes a bid to join the 27-member bloc. They have also argued that it will help counter Russian propaganda as Russia's invasion of Ukraine nears its one-year anniversary.\nBut organizations representing journalists say the law will erode press freedoms in Ukraine. Under the law, Ukraine's media regulator could block websites that are not registered with the government as news organizations, The Kyiv Independent reported on Friday. \nThe law is at odds with freedoms given to the press in other parts of Europe, the European Federation of Journalists said in a statement on Friday, according to the Times. \nEdit: because some users argued (with justification) that my post kept specific details hidden, I added the rest of the news post. I also checked the Kyiv Independent and it checks out.",
">\n\nWhile this is true, if I'm not mistaken some EU members have still spoken out against the bill - mainly because the new regulatory body will be led/run by the federal government, whereas in the EU they're generally a separate entity from the government run by civilians\nStill a step in the right direction, but I can see where people worry",
">\n\nHow is censorship a right step in any direction?",
">\n\nIt's indeed a double edged sword. On the one hand self-proclaimed news networks might spread their political agenda or incite illegal behaviour, on the other hand it's a real shortcut to control the media. This needs to be handled very carefully and probably by a body that's not interwoven with the government.",
">\n\nThere are few good options in war, especially a total war where the very survival of a country and ethnolinguistic group is at risk. Zelenskyy is probably going a bit far, but it’s hard to really blame him.",
">\n\nDepends on what the censorship is… trying to dispel discontentment with current ruling party or suppressing enemy state misinformation.",
">\n\nI think it's safe to infer the reasoning is to filter propaganda. I don't think there is much discontent with the current ruling party. Zelensky\"s approval ratings have been through the roof. Although, it's an easy power to abuse in the wrong hands.",
">\n\nI mean, can you think of a single instance in history where censorship was a net societal benefit, rolled back when no longer necessary, and not abused over the long-term? Nothing comes to mind.\nJournalists surely also know this to be the case, hence their outspoken opposition to the measure.",
">\n\nAbraham Lincoln suspending habeas corpus in the civil war is probably the best example for Americans in here. Would it be tolerated during peacetime? hell no. Would it be tolerated when the entire country is at an inflection point like the Ukraine is in 2023 and the US in 1861. Yes.\nedit: left out Abe's last name",
">\n\nWhat's it like to be on a first-name basis with Abraham Lincoln?",
">\n\nIt does make sense to block Russian \"news\" channels but its easily open to abuse",
">\n\nThis. Sounds like the Sedition Act of 1917. Easy to pass during wartime and makes sense, but probably wouldn’t get passed during peacetime. \nIt also doesn’t help that Ukraine was like #31 on the world’s corruption index prior to the war.",
">\n\nI vaguely recall reading that prior to the war Ukraine was the second most corrupt country in Europe, behind Russia.",
">\n\nThat's pretty much why Zelensky won the elections, he ran on an anti-corruption platform and has actually done a lot to combat it",
">\n\nLike what?",
">\n\nno more oligarchs",
">\n\nYou really think he ended the oligarchy? And it will only get 100x worse after the war when western businessmen come in to “fix” the country.",
">\n\nLmao this. We should all remember that he was also named in the Panama papers for holding 20+ million overseas",
">\n\nWhats so weird about successful actor having 20million to their name?",
">\n\nThey’ve been blocking the BBC on and off for years.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest lessons the world will learn from this conflict is that while Ukraine is/are the good guys… they are far, far behind a system that is akin to the western world.\nmy father’s grandfather was from Ukraine.\nAs he likes to say, Ukraine had 30 years to get their shit together so that when this day (02/24/22, Russia’s invasion which was always an inevitability if you know Ukraine, Ukraine’s history and geopolitics) arrived they’d be more than just militarily prepared.\nThey would be a part of NATO.. but Ukraine wanted to dip its toes in both democracy and wide-scale corruption.",
">\n\nFrom what I understand, the oligarchs and who grabbed up all the candy when the USSR piñata ruptured have been a big part of the problem. They have lost a lot of power and wealth, and some experts believe that this could create a political space for serious reform. I sure hope so!",
">\n\nExactly not to mention many oligarchs actually own news outlets and even television stations. I get what they’re trying to do given the war, but they have to be careful with the execution of it because it’s a step away from authoritarian control over news and media. News and media should be free but within limits too. Ex. Carlson tucker on Fox News in the US isn’t exactly unbiased. If there was a Ukrainian counterpart, they’d try to shut it down.",
">\n\nA nation in war time does not have the luxury of entertaining 100% freedom of information, especially considering the constant misinformation campaigns waged by Russia on top of its land war.",
">\n\nShutting on and off news websites? Banning political parties? BAWWW TYRANNY.\n\nPeople should not be naive, Ukraine is at war, the survival of their nation is at stake.",
">\n\nPrecisely, and psyops against Ukraine are extremely active.\nI hope they can reach Western values one day, but this is war against a much bigger Country that does not play fair. \nLet's let Ukraine win this war first and give them some time to rebuild before their culture becomes more Western.",
">\n\nHere in Adelaide, Australia, we did that. In the days before websites so he wasn't blocked, but a certain editor knew he wasn't welcome and had to leave town. He was an awful liar and very divisive. Inherited a newspaper from his dad called 'The News'.\nAfter he left town he started a company named after the Adelaide paper, NewsCorp. Rupert Murdoch was the name he went by (though his first name is really Keith, not Rupert). Wonder whatever happened to him?",
">\n\nHe got mad and decided to ruin the world.",
">\n\n\"I think it's good when we do it\" is a dangerous justification",
">\n\nYes, it is very similar to how the freedom of press declined in Russia. All medias were required to be registered by some governmental department in order to \"control the flow of information from abroad\". In no time it became the instrument of banning unwanted media.\nThough I admit banning Russian state media is for the better. Could they be banned in Russia itself, too?",
">\n\nThe thing is who defines that the media is pro-Russian. While it stays for the Ukrainian government to define, Ukrainian freedom of speech basically is being destroyed.",
">\n\nNot really enough information in the article to make an informed opinion on this.\n \nDecision was made by parliament, Zelenskyy's role in this is to sign the law, much like other world leaders don't necessarily agree with everything they have to sign.\nThe article mentions this is to allow them to ban websites not listed as media, which to me means the ability to ban any website if it isn't a registered media website. So, specifically to not allow them to block news websites so long as they are registered.\nAlso mentions this was to try and bring them more in line with EU countries, while at the same time saying it does the opposite.\n \nDo we have a link to the actual text of the new law?",
">\n\nSlippery slope",
">\n\nMost of the west have already blocked RT for their disinformation.",
">\n\nPrivate companies blocking is one thing, but governments is very different.\nA lot of laws created with \"good intentions\" are very often used for bad things, especially in countries with long history of corruption like Ukraine.",
">\n\nFrance is blocking RT",
">\n\nThese things happen during war, in every country.\nThe real test is seeing what laws will be repealed once this is all over imo.",
">\n\n\nThe real test is seeing what laws will be repealed once this is all over\n\nNone of them will be. Governments never voluntarily surrender any measure of control over the people. That's why the US is still officially in a state of national emergency 22 years after 9/11: so that the government elites can keep using their \"temporary\" emergency powers.",
">\n\nThe exact opposite has been happening in a lot of cases. The war has been used as an excuse to carry out a lot of deregulation and liberalization",
">\n\nLike when they banned left wing opposition parties?",
">\n\nArticle says websites not registered as media could be blocked. Kind of the opposite of what the headline says...",
">\n\nGovernments never relinquish power once they have it. Look at how the patriot act went from protecting our country to taking our rights. This is not a slippery slope. This is what corruption looks like. I really want Ukraine to succeed but decisions like this gives me trepidation.",
">\n\nRussia China bans websites \"fascists, ugly despots, violating human rights\" \nsomeone else does it \"understandable, well within their rights, good step\"\nAn accurate portrayal of exceptionalism",
">\n\nPeople have a hard time applying the same logic to things they like.",
">\n\nCool, there is certainly zero propaganda coming out Ukraine, for sure.",
">\n\nHa!",
">\n\nThat sounds like a healthy and not at all a government propaganda machine.",
">\n\nIt’s their country, let ‘em do as they choose. I can understand it during wartime, but in peacetime it sounds like one of those slippery slopes….",
">\n\nConsidering that before the war started everyone was talking about how corrupt the Ukraine government was I'd expect this to be abused for the duration of the war and after.",
">\n\nWestern media can be just as bad at spouting Russian propaganda. It seems like the editors have no ability to disseminate when I see headlines on APNews/Reuters weekly about how \"Putin is ready to negotiate but Ukraine refuses\".",
">\n\nI mean, this Business Insider article is a pretty fantastic case in point:\nare there reasonable concerns about this law? Yup.\nAre there extremely good reasons to pass it regardless, in a state of war against an adversary which thrives off propaganda? Also yes.\nWill Business Insider try and \"both sides\" this to get the \"BWUH 1984\" crowd arguing about their article? Final yes.",
">\n\nWell, Ukraine has never been the democratic heaven that the west is portraying it as in order to feed the propaganda. It's the most corrupt country in Europe and political opposition prior to the invasion was also suppressed.\nOne of Elensky's opposition leaders was in house arrest, although I can't remember his name. I think he escaped after the war started.",
">\n\nFreedom Fighter bans Dissent",
">\n\nThis is never good",
">\n\nYou either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.\n… Or maybe it’s to block Russian propaganda; idk",
">\n\nGovernment controlled media… if anyone thinks this is a good idea then you’re wrong",
">\n\nWhen has censorship ever been on the right side of history?",
">\n\nLincoln infamously censored free speech and the press during the American civil war, and often arrested (without due process!) anyone publishing media opposing the draft or expressing sympathy for the south",
">\n\n\"don't listen to that propaganda, listen to this propaganda\"",
">\n\nAnd so it begins.",
">\n\nI wonder how many pro-working class news outlets will suddenly be removed because they’re critical of Ukraine’s bourgeois government.",
">\n\nThe west is gonna act shocked when this war is over and it turns out Ukraine is still a corrupt place, but saying that makes me pro Russian or some shit",
">\n\nWhat irks me is them saying that being in the EU will supposedly make things better…",
">\n\nAs a country at war, censorship is not surprising. What will be telling is how they behave once the war is over.",
">\n\nSomething a totally not fascist would do, right?",
">\n\nwhen news reporting is killing your soldiers",
">\n\nHe already banned opposing political parties. What’s next?",
">\n\nThey also banned Russian and Rusyn languages schools. Its an ethnostate, simple as.",
">\n\nWar tends to be bad for freedom of speech. The Ukrainian people have a right to hear what pro-Russian media is saying.",
">\n\nAnd yet people claim that this guy is the savior of democracy? Aahahahahah, m'kay.",
">\n\nHonestly this isn't news. Countries are well known for curtailing news reporting during wartime. The US and UK did it during WW2. You don't want news media reporting the location of your troops or movements. \nThe test to democracy isn't what's passed during wartime, it's what's rescinded when war is over. When Ukraine eventually wins, the question will be how well do they transition to functioning, minimally corrupt transparent democracy. Will Zelensky and his successors freely give up power? Will the people elect fascist white nationalists who contributed to the war effort? The future remains to be seen. Well intentions can easily be lead astray.",
">\n\n“Could” is probably doing a lot of work here.",
">\n\nThe problem with that is that it shouldn’t. Laws need to be scoped heavily, or they will be rife with abuse.",
">\n\nSo censorship is suddenly ok because someone that’s not Russia did it.",
">\n\nThe headline sounds terrible. However reading helps add sense to it. \nBut I can't help to wonder whether blocking news websites due to \"weaponized media\" is a good thing or bad thing. I feel there's a gray line here that could be getting crossed and one has to question \"Is this propaganda that's being blocked, or is this our country censoring media brainwashing us in an attempt to strengthen their resolve?\" \nI'm all for Ukraine in this war, but in terms of a country censoring media, it's well.... a sticky subject. What action is the correct action when your enemies are using it as a weapon to confuse the public opinion?",
">\n\nI have no problem with this, RT is blocked in my country and Europe",
">\n\nafaik this is just ukraine setting up a media regulator along EU directives - all countries must have these mechanisms.",
">\n\nEU directives aren’t regulated by the government. Ukraine’s will be",
">\n\nDuring war time, I think that's fine. It's important to minimize Russian propaganda and to make sure no military information gets leaked.",
">\n\nIf the independent regulator can't be trusted during war time, why can it be trusted during peace time?",
">\n\nTo be very clear, this is many steps too far for peacetime and this bill isn't limited to wartime.\nI'm not Ukrainian and not an expert on the bill by any means but placing this under the same umbrella as the ~~federal~~ national government is dangerous and exposes the country to big problems down the road.\nI could defend it if the bill explicitly was for wartime. And many bills have expiration dates. But this is not good.",
">\n\nBut I thought he was about democracy?",
">\n\nGood if it's for the russian news websites only!\nNow, how about Ukraine's president fix that law forbidding romanian language to be taught to the romanian minority in Ukraine?\nAr we good neighbors respecting each other or are we not?",
">\n\nFinally someone who understands what is going on here.",
">\n\nGenius",
">\n\nAuto correct typo in my first post! Fixed.\nNot at all supporting suppression of dissent, but there has to be some way to block intentionally slander and misinformation, the hawking of all out lies through garbage like Alex Jones from bending the public discourse, and causing serious social harm. \nParading conspiracy theories or promoting propaganda created by the FSB to destabilize democracy isn't journalism, and isn't news. Legit journalism runs on facts and as such self corrects as better information comes to light. Propaganda either points to a new distraction or digs deeper into a lie, as do its adherents.",
">\n\nNo idea what people are complaining about. Ukraine had pro-Russian politicians in the parliament, russian fake news and pro-russian KGB \"church\" freely acting in Ukraine for years right before the invasion. The real question is why the didn't shut down them long before.",
">\n\nThe Smith act of 1940 comes to mind.\nUkraine is under threat of genocide. Let's see what happens after they win.",
">\n\nWe need to close/block russian or pro-russian websites.",
">\n\nOh no!",
">\n\nI just know its going to be a dark day if news reporters/programs are no longer allowed to make up news and are required to tell the entire story about something. \nSadly if you take away the freedom to blabber from a roof top, you also take away freedom of press",
">\n\nWhy not, news websites are a weapon and can be used by either side.",
">\n\nHmmmm. Interesting",
">\n\nThe beginning of the end",
">\n\nSuch a fascist",
">\n\nChurches next?",
">\n\nAlready",
">\n\nIt's very reasonable to find this offputting, but a ton of westerners are showing their chauvinism in this thread. Acting like any/every NATO country hasn't/wouldn't do this in times of war or great conflict is just asinine, governments pretty much everywhere will regulate whose propaganda is legal and whose isn't. Not saying it's always justified, but many westerners are acting like their shit don't stink.",
">\n\nBaltics and lot of EU countries have banned russian propoganda chanels. I agree with this. Russian propoganda is no joke and i would not recomend it for uninitiated.",
">\n\nThey didn’t ban Russian propaganda channels. Law allows government to block any news website they feel necessary. Given the track record of corruption in Ukrainian governance, this can’t be good.\nEdit: grammar",
">\n\nHaving a standard of what qualifies as news while engaged in a propaganda attack from a country several times your size if propferly monitored information through a board and independent laws could be a net positive\nI’m the USA the repeal of the fairness doctorine is often sited as a reason the news ended up with broadcasters telling people not to take a vaccine during a pandemic",
">\n\nWonder if Zelenskky will be Ukraine's ~~Dictator~~ President in 10 years time.",
">\n\nGet your popcorn while redditors try to tell you why this is a good thing and Zelensky can do no wrong",
">\n\nYikes",
">\n\nUkraine was corrupt as all hell before Russia invaded, and continue corrupt and not worthy of trust. Just because they're fighting for their sovereignty against Putin's evil ass doesn't mean they get a blank check to do whatever the fuck they want and pass it off as correct or for some greater good. This is authoritarian bullshit, nothing else.",
">\n\nIt's quite interesting to see the Zelensky fan boys doing their mental gymnastics to defend this policy. Having a government control what you can see is not good at all: it's a tactic thar has been used by most of the worst rulers in history: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.",
">\n\nI can understand why but honestly I think it’s a very slippery slope that most humans aren’t able to handle. Where’s the line at what is ok and what isn’t. A human decides that and humans are fallible.",
">\n\nThey were right to question this move. I hope the good President/Warrior isn't losing his head. This war is insane.",
">\n\nOne the one hand not too good depending on Implementation. One the other hand the legal framework to go against russian propaganda, misinformation and other Media based attenpts against ukraine.",
">\n\nThere is a lot of anti-Ukraine posts on OP’s profile, take this news with a grain of salt",
">\n\nThe UK blocked Russia Today and Sputnik from UK Satellites to stop their propoganda. It's a sensible thing to do in times of conflict.. we did the same to Nazi Germany also.",
">\n\nI think I just lost all respect for this guy",
">\n\nSecond most corrupt country in Europe (after Russia)... What else do you expect.",
">\n\nTough to balance government overreach against foreign interference.",
">\n\nThat's not good.",
">\n\nDon't pull a \"Russia\" bro. Wrong path to be taking.",
">\n\nYou do realize Russian propaganda channels are there and available to zombify people?\nI have spent so much of my personal time to report Youtube Channel24 videos and you have to show in each video where there is an explicit piece where there was a terrorist speech, it is tedious !! Also, noone seem to read an article cause the content is not like that at all",
">\n\nFor some people (especially here on reddit lmao) russian propaganda is any piece of informations you disagree with, and anyone saying it is either a bot or russian troll",
">\n\nRemember when the Russians invaded claiming there were Nazis in Ukraine?\nPepperidge Farms remembers.",
">\n\nPutin is not the good guy, but this doesn't mean Zelensky and the Ukranian government are a bunch of angels.",
">\n\nHe has cracked down on unions too.",
">\n\nDuring the civil war Lincoln has confederate sympathizing reports thrown in jail without trial. \nThis is not new",
">\n\nSomething seriously off with this man,",
">\n\nI’m sure when peace arrives, and one day Zelenskyy is replaced by a nefarious leader this law will also be remove right? Right?",
">\n\nLol watching this happen in slow motion while supposed lovers of freedom and the Ukrainian people just worship this man, who is an actor and he’s just gradually changing his role.",
">\n\nFreedom of speech? Hahaha, this is no better than Russia or China.",
">\n\nWhat a fucking dishonest headline. Shame on this publisher.",
">\n\nThis is a heck of a misleading headline, the law outlines blatant Russian propaganda sites as the issue. This is almost as bad as the reporting of them “banning orthodox religion” no they banned the orthodox Russian church, that church was using their religion as a cover to transport information back to Russia.",
">\n\nBad idea.",
">\n\nRussian propaganda is no joke and Ukraine probably needs the ability to block it. It's a shame this wasn't passed as wartime emergency legislation with an automatic repeal date though.",
">\n\nNothing to see here, just the good guys fighting against evil Russia 😅",
">\n\nAnd down the slippery slope we continue to slide.",
">\n\nHalf the problem with war now is the media giving g the game away ... there should 100% be restrictions on what the media can post during war time",
">\n\nWell, this headline is awful. First of all we already have such thing since 2015 I believe (one of popular examples is \"vk\" website), secondly - it's just EU standards. \nBtw we still don't have \"war censorship\", you can critisize government all you want.",
">\n\nImagine defending media censorship. China must be proud",
">\n\nRussia does exactly the same thing blocking websites that they consider to be spreading misinformation. And this is obviously bad.\nYet, the amount of double standards in this thread with people thinking that \"it's fine when Ukraine does it\" is absurd.\nBefore the war Ukraine was always on the top positions of most corrupt countries in Europe. This law WILL be abused.",
">\n\nRemember when he said he wanted to run his country more like a democracy…yeah, he just wants those dollars from the U.S",
">\n\nYup this is not the right way to do stuff... If you really wanna show that you are cleaning up the corruptness in your country then don't start making laws like this shit.",
">\n\nVery freedom loving and democratic",
">\n\nNothing says countering russian propaganda like censorship and more propaganda 👍",
">\n\nWatch Ukraine turn into a brutal dictatorship lead by the dancing with the stars jokey guy.",
">\n\nIts the same laws that govern the EU.",
">\n\nWell the corruption continues. “I think it’s good when we do it” Is not a good justification.",
">\n\nDictator for life",
">\n\nIt should only be valid as long as the war against Russia.",
">\n\nRussian \"new\" Websites, which actually are just propaganda machineries, should ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE be blocked.",
">\n\nUkraine has its own propaganda too.",
">\n\nName one nation in a conflict that doesn't censor and put out nationalistic/propaganda. Edited to clarify.",
">\n\nExactly man, that is why I'm saying that censoring is not the right call. Once the government censors you from reading international media, you are influenced by your own government and you know and think only what they want you to know and think. Having trust in your own government is ok but trusting it blindly is not. It makes you easily influenced by your own government,a puppet and as you said, every nation in conflict is making propaganda.",
">\n\nNo different than really any other country that has been in a total war. I just hope that's it's a temporary war measure, which I'm not sure it is.",
">\n\nTotally normal behavior",
">\n\nSounds like news sensorship to me..",
">\n\nHope rises. Discontent rises slightly.\nBeware of the poet's suicide.\nP.s. This is a game reference",
">\n\n1000% normal in war times. Many countries have done this before. It's impossible for Ukraine not to do this given how much Russia is investing into disinformation. Literally having speaker cars driving through the streets with propaganda 24/7. Broadcasting fake news into Ukraine through all mediums. If they get to a large group of people in the US imagine the amount of people they can influence when it comes to their neighbors.\nThe only way they can get Ukraine to lose the war is to break the people's will to fight and they're doing this by not only bombing schools, playgrounds, hospitals and powerplants to freeze them to death but also spreading propaganda to make the people second guess their leadership",
">\n\nCountries do this all the time. Even the US.\nStop trying to vilify Ukraine to appease that shit cabbage Putin. Russia invaded them, not the other way around.",
">\n\nI love watching people try to balance not being called out on ignoring Ukraine's pre-existing corruption and keeping the \"Ukraine = unquestionable good guys\" narrative.\nThere's nothing that says war HAS to be \"good guys vs bad guys\".",
">\n\nPeople have every right to complain about this. But remember Ukraine is fighting in the fields for their very existence.",
">\n\nZelensky understands Democracy more than people think. He's most likely changing it now because of the WAR so that not much information gets back to the enemy.. Remember when Ukraine did both big successful offensives they had a Media Blackout.",
">\n\nOnly state-approved propaganda is authorized",
">\n\nPeople are dumbasses in this thread, and have no idea how propaganda, and filtering media works. There's a reason why propaganda is dangerous, and there are reasons why it's blocked.\nNarrow minded AF.",
">\n\nIn war, certain civil liberties are curtailed. It is this way, it’s always been this way, and it will always be this way. War is not a game. It’s not good that this happens, of course, but it’s one of the many reasons war is bad.",
">\n\nThis definitely isn't suspicious at all",
">\n\nIt’s a standard phenomenon at war time.",
">\n\nOf course he did",
">\n\nWeeeird. Can’t wait to read all the comments somehow blaming this on Russia.",
">\n\nDoesn't sound very Democratic to me, Bob",
">\n\nI wish America would do the same or at least punish journalist & there agencies that promote there views if they are acting in a propagandists manor kinda like Cough 🦊 Cough 🦊",
">\n\nI get why they would want some censorship after the media leaked their military strategy, but I think it should be very limited",
">\n\nSo he is fascist?",
">\n\nyep that's what a dictator does. also take note when russian invaded, they had to scramble to deliver guns to the citizens and were ill prepared. this is what NOT having a 2nd amendment looks like. a complete clusterF",
">\n\nUh oh",
">\n\nBiden probably gave him the idea",
">\n\nHe's been silencing dissenting voices for some time now nothing new, except now he's a genuine dictator."
] |
>
Detractors paint this as some nefarious bid for authoritarianism when in reality it is the usual sort of issue that democratic governments face.
In Canada, the Canadian Television and Radio Commission (CRTC) is supposed to operate at arms length from the government but the head and Governor in Council are determined by the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
Ultimately, whether or not a body is elected by government or is “independent”, the reality is that money talks and the oligarchical media empires will manipulate either the politicians or independent boards to get their way.
The CRTC in Canada for instance, is seen by the public to serve the best interests of the media empires, not Canadians. | [
"Just curious, how did the US regulate media during WWII if at all? Obviously the war department was churning out war news and propaganda, but did they censor/restrict any media from being published?",
">\n\nYes, absolutely. They formed the Office of Censorship and heavily regulated the press, especially radio. But it was almost entirely geared towards preventing information on troop movements and weather from getting out, and coded enemy messages from getting in. They didn't force stations to broadcast propaganda or ban negative stories, and most of the restrictions were followed voluntarily.\nThere was also the Office of War Information which was responsible for producing propaganda and rejected film scripts that were critical or negative regarding the war effort - but they did not restrict the press to my knowledge.",
">\n\nSuper interesting! Thanks for sharing. Yes it seems this was a bit more functional about what comes in and out of the country, not necessarily with what’s published domestically as far as swaying public opinion. Also TIL the catch phrase “loose lips sink ships” came from this agency.\nThe voluntary aspect is somewhat enlightening as to how unified the country was in the war effort. The cynic in me makes me even more curious if there was other censorship at play outside of this agency that helped create that sentiment. I feel like someone would have replied about some landmark Supreme Court case by now though if that were the case.",
">\n\nAmerican's have a curious ability to get in line when there is a clear and present danger to the nation. Someone summed it up with \"You can always count on American's to do the right thing when they have no other option.\"",
">\n\nWinston Churchill famously stated “Americans will always do the right thing, only after they have tried everything else.\"\nIs that the quote you are thinking of?",
">\n\nIt was attributed to him, but tracing things down, it was apparent not said by him and I’ve heard both versions.",
">\n\nLawmakers have touted the bill as an effort to bring Ukraine's media laws closer to European Union standards as the country makes a bid to join the 27-member bloc. They have also argued that it will help counter Russian propaganda as Russia's invasion of Ukraine nears its one-year anniversary.\nBut organizations representing journalists say the law will erode press freedoms in Ukraine. Under the law, Ukraine's media regulator could block websites that are not registered with the government as news organizations, The Kyiv Independent reported on Friday. \nThe law is at odds with freedoms given to the press in other parts of Europe, the European Federation of Journalists said in a statement on Friday, according to the Times. \nEdit: because some users argued (with justification) that my post kept specific details hidden, I added the rest of the news post. I also checked the Kyiv Independent and it checks out.",
">\n\nWhile this is true, if I'm not mistaken some EU members have still spoken out against the bill - mainly because the new regulatory body will be led/run by the federal government, whereas in the EU they're generally a separate entity from the government run by civilians\nStill a step in the right direction, but I can see where people worry",
">\n\nHow is censorship a right step in any direction?",
">\n\nIt's indeed a double edged sword. On the one hand self-proclaimed news networks might spread their political agenda or incite illegal behaviour, on the other hand it's a real shortcut to control the media. This needs to be handled very carefully and probably by a body that's not interwoven with the government.",
">\n\nThere are few good options in war, especially a total war where the very survival of a country and ethnolinguistic group is at risk. Zelenskyy is probably going a bit far, but it’s hard to really blame him.",
">\n\nDepends on what the censorship is… trying to dispel discontentment with current ruling party or suppressing enemy state misinformation.",
">\n\nI think it's safe to infer the reasoning is to filter propaganda. I don't think there is much discontent with the current ruling party. Zelensky\"s approval ratings have been through the roof. Although, it's an easy power to abuse in the wrong hands.",
">\n\nI mean, can you think of a single instance in history where censorship was a net societal benefit, rolled back when no longer necessary, and not abused over the long-term? Nothing comes to mind.\nJournalists surely also know this to be the case, hence their outspoken opposition to the measure.",
">\n\nAbraham Lincoln suspending habeas corpus in the civil war is probably the best example for Americans in here. Would it be tolerated during peacetime? hell no. Would it be tolerated when the entire country is at an inflection point like the Ukraine is in 2023 and the US in 1861. Yes.\nedit: left out Abe's last name",
">\n\nWhat's it like to be on a first-name basis with Abraham Lincoln?",
">\n\nIt does make sense to block Russian \"news\" channels but its easily open to abuse",
">\n\nThis. Sounds like the Sedition Act of 1917. Easy to pass during wartime and makes sense, but probably wouldn’t get passed during peacetime. \nIt also doesn’t help that Ukraine was like #31 on the world’s corruption index prior to the war.",
">\n\nI vaguely recall reading that prior to the war Ukraine was the second most corrupt country in Europe, behind Russia.",
">\n\nThat's pretty much why Zelensky won the elections, he ran on an anti-corruption platform and has actually done a lot to combat it",
">\n\nLike what?",
">\n\nno more oligarchs",
">\n\nYou really think he ended the oligarchy? And it will only get 100x worse after the war when western businessmen come in to “fix” the country.",
">\n\nLmao this. We should all remember that he was also named in the Panama papers for holding 20+ million overseas",
">\n\nWhats so weird about successful actor having 20million to their name?",
">\n\nThey’ve been blocking the BBC on and off for years.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest lessons the world will learn from this conflict is that while Ukraine is/are the good guys… they are far, far behind a system that is akin to the western world.\nmy father’s grandfather was from Ukraine.\nAs he likes to say, Ukraine had 30 years to get their shit together so that when this day (02/24/22, Russia’s invasion which was always an inevitability if you know Ukraine, Ukraine’s history and geopolitics) arrived they’d be more than just militarily prepared.\nThey would be a part of NATO.. but Ukraine wanted to dip its toes in both democracy and wide-scale corruption.",
">\n\nFrom what I understand, the oligarchs and who grabbed up all the candy when the USSR piñata ruptured have been a big part of the problem. They have lost a lot of power and wealth, and some experts believe that this could create a political space for serious reform. I sure hope so!",
">\n\nExactly not to mention many oligarchs actually own news outlets and even television stations. I get what they’re trying to do given the war, but they have to be careful with the execution of it because it’s a step away from authoritarian control over news and media. News and media should be free but within limits too. Ex. Carlson tucker on Fox News in the US isn’t exactly unbiased. If there was a Ukrainian counterpart, they’d try to shut it down.",
">\n\nA nation in war time does not have the luxury of entertaining 100% freedom of information, especially considering the constant misinformation campaigns waged by Russia on top of its land war.",
">\n\nShutting on and off news websites? Banning political parties? BAWWW TYRANNY.\n\nPeople should not be naive, Ukraine is at war, the survival of their nation is at stake.",
">\n\nPrecisely, and psyops against Ukraine are extremely active.\nI hope they can reach Western values one day, but this is war against a much bigger Country that does not play fair. \nLet's let Ukraine win this war first and give them some time to rebuild before their culture becomes more Western.",
">\n\nHere in Adelaide, Australia, we did that. In the days before websites so he wasn't blocked, but a certain editor knew he wasn't welcome and had to leave town. He was an awful liar and very divisive. Inherited a newspaper from his dad called 'The News'.\nAfter he left town he started a company named after the Adelaide paper, NewsCorp. Rupert Murdoch was the name he went by (though his first name is really Keith, not Rupert). Wonder whatever happened to him?",
">\n\nHe got mad and decided to ruin the world.",
">\n\n\"I think it's good when we do it\" is a dangerous justification",
">\n\nYes, it is very similar to how the freedom of press declined in Russia. All medias were required to be registered by some governmental department in order to \"control the flow of information from abroad\". In no time it became the instrument of banning unwanted media.\nThough I admit banning Russian state media is for the better. Could they be banned in Russia itself, too?",
">\n\nThe thing is who defines that the media is pro-Russian. While it stays for the Ukrainian government to define, Ukrainian freedom of speech basically is being destroyed.",
">\n\nNot really enough information in the article to make an informed opinion on this.\n \nDecision was made by parliament, Zelenskyy's role in this is to sign the law, much like other world leaders don't necessarily agree with everything they have to sign.\nThe article mentions this is to allow them to ban websites not listed as media, which to me means the ability to ban any website if it isn't a registered media website. So, specifically to not allow them to block news websites so long as they are registered.\nAlso mentions this was to try and bring them more in line with EU countries, while at the same time saying it does the opposite.\n \nDo we have a link to the actual text of the new law?",
">\n\nSlippery slope",
">\n\nMost of the west have already blocked RT for their disinformation.",
">\n\nPrivate companies blocking is one thing, but governments is very different.\nA lot of laws created with \"good intentions\" are very often used for bad things, especially in countries with long history of corruption like Ukraine.",
">\n\nFrance is blocking RT",
">\n\nThese things happen during war, in every country.\nThe real test is seeing what laws will be repealed once this is all over imo.",
">\n\n\nThe real test is seeing what laws will be repealed once this is all over\n\nNone of them will be. Governments never voluntarily surrender any measure of control over the people. That's why the US is still officially in a state of national emergency 22 years after 9/11: so that the government elites can keep using their \"temporary\" emergency powers.",
">\n\nThe exact opposite has been happening in a lot of cases. The war has been used as an excuse to carry out a lot of deregulation and liberalization",
">\n\nLike when they banned left wing opposition parties?",
">\n\nArticle says websites not registered as media could be blocked. Kind of the opposite of what the headline says...",
">\n\nGovernments never relinquish power once they have it. Look at how the patriot act went from protecting our country to taking our rights. This is not a slippery slope. This is what corruption looks like. I really want Ukraine to succeed but decisions like this gives me trepidation.",
">\n\nRussia China bans websites \"fascists, ugly despots, violating human rights\" \nsomeone else does it \"understandable, well within their rights, good step\"\nAn accurate portrayal of exceptionalism",
">\n\nPeople have a hard time applying the same logic to things they like.",
">\n\nCool, there is certainly zero propaganda coming out Ukraine, for sure.",
">\n\nHa!",
">\n\nThat sounds like a healthy and not at all a government propaganda machine.",
">\n\nIt’s their country, let ‘em do as they choose. I can understand it during wartime, but in peacetime it sounds like one of those slippery slopes….",
">\n\nConsidering that before the war started everyone was talking about how corrupt the Ukraine government was I'd expect this to be abused for the duration of the war and after.",
">\n\nWestern media can be just as bad at spouting Russian propaganda. It seems like the editors have no ability to disseminate when I see headlines on APNews/Reuters weekly about how \"Putin is ready to negotiate but Ukraine refuses\".",
">\n\nI mean, this Business Insider article is a pretty fantastic case in point:\nare there reasonable concerns about this law? Yup.\nAre there extremely good reasons to pass it regardless, in a state of war against an adversary which thrives off propaganda? Also yes.\nWill Business Insider try and \"both sides\" this to get the \"BWUH 1984\" crowd arguing about their article? Final yes.",
">\n\nWell, Ukraine has never been the democratic heaven that the west is portraying it as in order to feed the propaganda. It's the most corrupt country in Europe and political opposition prior to the invasion was also suppressed.\nOne of Elensky's opposition leaders was in house arrest, although I can't remember his name. I think he escaped after the war started.",
">\n\nFreedom Fighter bans Dissent",
">\n\nThis is never good",
">\n\nYou either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.\n… Or maybe it’s to block Russian propaganda; idk",
">\n\nGovernment controlled media… if anyone thinks this is a good idea then you’re wrong",
">\n\nWhen has censorship ever been on the right side of history?",
">\n\nLincoln infamously censored free speech and the press during the American civil war, and often arrested (without due process!) anyone publishing media opposing the draft or expressing sympathy for the south",
">\n\n\"don't listen to that propaganda, listen to this propaganda\"",
">\n\nAnd so it begins.",
">\n\nI wonder how many pro-working class news outlets will suddenly be removed because they’re critical of Ukraine’s bourgeois government.",
">\n\nThe west is gonna act shocked when this war is over and it turns out Ukraine is still a corrupt place, but saying that makes me pro Russian or some shit",
">\n\nWhat irks me is them saying that being in the EU will supposedly make things better…",
">\n\nAs a country at war, censorship is not surprising. What will be telling is how they behave once the war is over.",
">\n\nSomething a totally not fascist would do, right?",
">\n\nwhen news reporting is killing your soldiers",
">\n\nHe already banned opposing political parties. What’s next?",
">\n\nThey also banned Russian and Rusyn languages schools. Its an ethnostate, simple as.",
">\n\nWar tends to be bad for freedom of speech. The Ukrainian people have a right to hear what pro-Russian media is saying.",
">\n\nAnd yet people claim that this guy is the savior of democracy? Aahahahahah, m'kay.",
">\n\nHonestly this isn't news. Countries are well known for curtailing news reporting during wartime. The US and UK did it during WW2. You don't want news media reporting the location of your troops or movements. \nThe test to democracy isn't what's passed during wartime, it's what's rescinded when war is over. When Ukraine eventually wins, the question will be how well do they transition to functioning, minimally corrupt transparent democracy. Will Zelensky and his successors freely give up power? Will the people elect fascist white nationalists who contributed to the war effort? The future remains to be seen. Well intentions can easily be lead astray.",
">\n\n“Could” is probably doing a lot of work here.",
">\n\nThe problem with that is that it shouldn’t. Laws need to be scoped heavily, or they will be rife with abuse.",
">\n\nSo censorship is suddenly ok because someone that’s not Russia did it.",
">\n\nThe headline sounds terrible. However reading helps add sense to it. \nBut I can't help to wonder whether blocking news websites due to \"weaponized media\" is a good thing or bad thing. I feel there's a gray line here that could be getting crossed and one has to question \"Is this propaganda that's being blocked, or is this our country censoring media brainwashing us in an attempt to strengthen their resolve?\" \nI'm all for Ukraine in this war, but in terms of a country censoring media, it's well.... a sticky subject. What action is the correct action when your enemies are using it as a weapon to confuse the public opinion?",
">\n\nI have no problem with this, RT is blocked in my country and Europe",
">\n\nafaik this is just ukraine setting up a media regulator along EU directives - all countries must have these mechanisms.",
">\n\nEU directives aren’t regulated by the government. Ukraine’s will be",
">\n\nDuring war time, I think that's fine. It's important to minimize Russian propaganda and to make sure no military information gets leaked.",
">\n\nIf the independent regulator can't be trusted during war time, why can it be trusted during peace time?",
">\n\nTo be very clear, this is many steps too far for peacetime and this bill isn't limited to wartime.\nI'm not Ukrainian and not an expert on the bill by any means but placing this under the same umbrella as the ~~federal~~ national government is dangerous and exposes the country to big problems down the road.\nI could defend it if the bill explicitly was for wartime. And many bills have expiration dates. But this is not good.",
">\n\nBut I thought he was about democracy?",
">\n\nGood if it's for the russian news websites only!\nNow, how about Ukraine's president fix that law forbidding romanian language to be taught to the romanian minority in Ukraine?\nAr we good neighbors respecting each other or are we not?",
">\n\nFinally someone who understands what is going on here.",
">\n\nGenius",
">\n\nAuto correct typo in my first post! Fixed.\nNot at all supporting suppression of dissent, but there has to be some way to block intentionally slander and misinformation, the hawking of all out lies through garbage like Alex Jones from bending the public discourse, and causing serious social harm. \nParading conspiracy theories or promoting propaganda created by the FSB to destabilize democracy isn't journalism, and isn't news. Legit journalism runs on facts and as such self corrects as better information comes to light. Propaganda either points to a new distraction or digs deeper into a lie, as do its adherents.",
">\n\nNo idea what people are complaining about. Ukraine had pro-Russian politicians in the parliament, russian fake news and pro-russian KGB \"church\" freely acting in Ukraine for years right before the invasion. The real question is why the didn't shut down them long before.",
">\n\nThe Smith act of 1940 comes to mind.\nUkraine is under threat of genocide. Let's see what happens after they win.",
">\n\nWe need to close/block russian or pro-russian websites.",
">\n\nOh no!",
">\n\nI just know its going to be a dark day if news reporters/programs are no longer allowed to make up news and are required to tell the entire story about something. \nSadly if you take away the freedom to blabber from a roof top, you also take away freedom of press",
">\n\nWhy not, news websites are a weapon and can be used by either side.",
">\n\nHmmmm. Interesting",
">\n\nThe beginning of the end",
">\n\nSuch a fascist",
">\n\nChurches next?",
">\n\nAlready",
">\n\nIt's very reasonable to find this offputting, but a ton of westerners are showing their chauvinism in this thread. Acting like any/every NATO country hasn't/wouldn't do this in times of war or great conflict is just asinine, governments pretty much everywhere will regulate whose propaganda is legal and whose isn't. Not saying it's always justified, but many westerners are acting like their shit don't stink.",
">\n\nBaltics and lot of EU countries have banned russian propoganda chanels. I agree with this. Russian propoganda is no joke and i would not recomend it for uninitiated.",
">\n\nThey didn’t ban Russian propaganda channels. Law allows government to block any news website they feel necessary. Given the track record of corruption in Ukrainian governance, this can’t be good.\nEdit: grammar",
">\n\nHaving a standard of what qualifies as news while engaged in a propaganda attack from a country several times your size if propferly monitored information through a board and independent laws could be a net positive\nI’m the USA the repeal of the fairness doctorine is often sited as a reason the news ended up with broadcasters telling people not to take a vaccine during a pandemic",
">\n\nWonder if Zelenskky will be Ukraine's ~~Dictator~~ President in 10 years time.",
">\n\nGet your popcorn while redditors try to tell you why this is a good thing and Zelensky can do no wrong",
">\n\nYikes",
">\n\nUkraine was corrupt as all hell before Russia invaded, and continue corrupt and not worthy of trust. Just because they're fighting for their sovereignty against Putin's evil ass doesn't mean they get a blank check to do whatever the fuck they want and pass it off as correct or for some greater good. This is authoritarian bullshit, nothing else.",
">\n\nIt's quite interesting to see the Zelensky fan boys doing their mental gymnastics to defend this policy. Having a government control what you can see is not good at all: it's a tactic thar has been used by most of the worst rulers in history: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.",
">\n\nI can understand why but honestly I think it’s a very slippery slope that most humans aren’t able to handle. Where’s the line at what is ok and what isn’t. A human decides that and humans are fallible.",
">\n\nThey were right to question this move. I hope the good President/Warrior isn't losing his head. This war is insane.",
">\n\nOne the one hand not too good depending on Implementation. One the other hand the legal framework to go against russian propaganda, misinformation and other Media based attenpts against ukraine.",
">\n\nThere is a lot of anti-Ukraine posts on OP’s profile, take this news with a grain of salt",
">\n\nThe UK blocked Russia Today and Sputnik from UK Satellites to stop their propoganda. It's a sensible thing to do in times of conflict.. we did the same to Nazi Germany also.",
">\n\nI think I just lost all respect for this guy",
">\n\nSecond most corrupt country in Europe (after Russia)... What else do you expect.",
">\n\nTough to balance government overreach against foreign interference.",
">\n\nThat's not good.",
">\n\nDon't pull a \"Russia\" bro. Wrong path to be taking.",
">\n\nYou do realize Russian propaganda channels are there and available to zombify people?\nI have spent so much of my personal time to report Youtube Channel24 videos and you have to show in each video where there is an explicit piece where there was a terrorist speech, it is tedious !! Also, noone seem to read an article cause the content is not like that at all",
">\n\nFor some people (especially here on reddit lmao) russian propaganda is any piece of informations you disagree with, and anyone saying it is either a bot or russian troll",
">\n\nRemember when the Russians invaded claiming there were Nazis in Ukraine?\nPepperidge Farms remembers.",
">\n\nPutin is not the good guy, but this doesn't mean Zelensky and the Ukranian government are a bunch of angels.",
">\n\nHe has cracked down on unions too.",
">\n\nDuring the civil war Lincoln has confederate sympathizing reports thrown in jail without trial. \nThis is not new",
">\n\nSomething seriously off with this man,",
">\n\nI’m sure when peace arrives, and one day Zelenskyy is replaced by a nefarious leader this law will also be remove right? Right?",
">\n\nLol watching this happen in slow motion while supposed lovers of freedom and the Ukrainian people just worship this man, who is an actor and he’s just gradually changing his role.",
">\n\nFreedom of speech? Hahaha, this is no better than Russia or China.",
">\n\nWhat a fucking dishonest headline. Shame on this publisher.",
">\n\nThis is a heck of a misleading headline, the law outlines blatant Russian propaganda sites as the issue. This is almost as bad as the reporting of them “banning orthodox religion” no they banned the orthodox Russian church, that church was using their religion as a cover to transport information back to Russia.",
">\n\nBad idea.",
">\n\nRussian propaganda is no joke and Ukraine probably needs the ability to block it. It's a shame this wasn't passed as wartime emergency legislation with an automatic repeal date though.",
">\n\nNothing to see here, just the good guys fighting against evil Russia 😅",
">\n\nAnd down the slippery slope we continue to slide.",
">\n\nHalf the problem with war now is the media giving g the game away ... there should 100% be restrictions on what the media can post during war time",
">\n\nWell, this headline is awful. First of all we already have such thing since 2015 I believe (one of popular examples is \"vk\" website), secondly - it's just EU standards. \nBtw we still don't have \"war censorship\", you can critisize government all you want.",
">\n\nImagine defending media censorship. China must be proud",
">\n\nRussia does exactly the same thing blocking websites that they consider to be spreading misinformation. And this is obviously bad.\nYet, the amount of double standards in this thread with people thinking that \"it's fine when Ukraine does it\" is absurd.\nBefore the war Ukraine was always on the top positions of most corrupt countries in Europe. This law WILL be abused.",
">\n\nRemember when he said he wanted to run his country more like a democracy…yeah, he just wants those dollars from the U.S",
">\n\nYup this is not the right way to do stuff... If you really wanna show that you are cleaning up the corruptness in your country then don't start making laws like this shit.",
">\n\nVery freedom loving and democratic",
">\n\nNothing says countering russian propaganda like censorship and more propaganda 👍",
">\n\nWatch Ukraine turn into a brutal dictatorship lead by the dancing with the stars jokey guy.",
">\n\nIts the same laws that govern the EU.",
">\n\nWell the corruption continues. “I think it’s good when we do it” Is not a good justification.",
">\n\nDictator for life",
">\n\nIt should only be valid as long as the war against Russia.",
">\n\nRussian \"new\" Websites, which actually are just propaganda machineries, should ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE be blocked.",
">\n\nUkraine has its own propaganda too.",
">\n\nName one nation in a conflict that doesn't censor and put out nationalistic/propaganda. Edited to clarify.",
">\n\nExactly man, that is why I'm saying that censoring is not the right call. Once the government censors you from reading international media, you are influenced by your own government and you know and think only what they want you to know and think. Having trust in your own government is ok but trusting it blindly is not. It makes you easily influenced by your own government,a puppet and as you said, every nation in conflict is making propaganda.",
">\n\nNo different than really any other country that has been in a total war. I just hope that's it's a temporary war measure, which I'm not sure it is.",
">\n\nTotally normal behavior",
">\n\nSounds like news sensorship to me..",
">\n\nHope rises. Discontent rises slightly.\nBeware of the poet's suicide.\nP.s. This is a game reference",
">\n\n1000% normal in war times. Many countries have done this before. It's impossible for Ukraine not to do this given how much Russia is investing into disinformation. Literally having speaker cars driving through the streets with propaganda 24/7. Broadcasting fake news into Ukraine through all mediums. If they get to a large group of people in the US imagine the amount of people they can influence when it comes to their neighbors.\nThe only way they can get Ukraine to lose the war is to break the people's will to fight and they're doing this by not only bombing schools, playgrounds, hospitals and powerplants to freeze them to death but also spreading propaganda to make the people second guess their leadership",
">\n\nCountries do this all the time. Even the US.\nStop trying to vilify Ukraine to appease that shit cabbage Putin. Russia invaded them, not the other way around.",
">\n\nI love watching people try to balance not being called out on ignoring Ukraine's pre-existing corruption and keeping the \"Ukraine = unquestionable good guys\" narrative.\nThere's nothing that says war HAS to be \"good guys vs bad guys\".",
">\n\nPeople have every right to complain about this. But remember Ukraine is fighting in the fields for their very existence.",
">\n\nZelensky understands Democracy more than people think. He's most likely changing it now because of the WAR so that not much information gets back to the enemy.. Remember when Ukraine did both big successful offensives they had a Media Blackout.",
">\n\nOnly state-approved propaganda is authorized",
">\n\nPeople are dumbasses in this thread, and have no idea how propaganda, and filtering media works. There's a reason why propaganda is dangerous, and there are reasons why it's blocked.\nNarrow minded AF.",
">\n\nIn war, certain civil liberties are curtailed. It is this way, it’s always been this way, and it will always be this way. War is not a game. It’s not good that this happens, of course, but it’s one of the many reasons war is bad.",
">\n\nThis definitely isn't suspicious at all",
">\n\nIt’s a standard phenomenon at war time.",
">\n\nOf course he did",
">\n\nWeeeird. Can’t wait to read all the comments somehow blaming this on Russia.",
">\n\nDoesn't sound very Democratic to me, Bob",
">\n\nI wish America would do the same or at least punish journalist & there agencies that promote there views if they are acting in a propagandists manor kinda like Cough 🦊 Cough 🦊",
">\n\nI get why they would want some censorship after the media leaked their military strategy, but I think it should be very limited",
">\n\nSo he is fascist?",
">\n\nyep that's what a dictator does. also take note when russian invaded, they had to scramble to deliver guns to the citizens and were ill prepared. this is what NOT having a 2nd amendment looks like. a complete clusterF",
">\n\nUh oh",
">\n\nBiden probably gave him the idea",
">\n\nHe's been silencing dissenting voices for some time now nothing new, except now he's a genuine dictator.",
">\n\nSo you mean to tell me that all this money the United States is sending to Ukraine isn’t really to save democracy? Didn’t see that coming."
] |
>
When a western democracy is fighting for its life, it’s important to keep a United front.
Ukraine has A LOT of Russian propaganda that, like we’ve seen from the American right, have pushed baseless conspiracies that only hurt and divide a country. | [
"Just curious, how did the US regulate media during WWII if at all? Obviously the war department was churning out war news and propaganda, but did they censor/restrict any media from being published?",
">\n\nYes, absolutely. They formed the Office of Censorship and heavily regulated the press, especially radio. But it was almost entirely geared towards preventing information on troop movements and weather from getting out, and coded enemy messages from getting in. They didn't force stations to broadcast propaganda or ban negative stories, and most of the restrictions were followed voluntarily.\nThere was also the Office of War Information which was responsible for producing propaganda and rejected film scripts that were critical or negative regarding the war effort - but they did not restrict the press to my knowledge.",
">\n\nSuper interesting! Thanks for sharing. Yes it seems this was a bit more functional about what comes in and out of the country, not necessarily with what’s published domestically as far as swaying public opinion. Also TIL the catch phrase “loose lips sink ships” came from this agency.\nThe voluntary aspect is somewhat enlightening as to how unified the country was in the war effort. The cynic in me makes me even more curious if there was other censorship at play outside of this agency that helped create that sentiment. I feel like someone would have replied about some landmark Supreme Court case by now though if that were the case.",
">\n\nAmerican's have a curious ability to get in line when there is a clear and present danger to the nation. Someone summed it up with \"You can always count on American's to do the right thing when they have no other option.\"",
">\n\nWinston Churchill famously stated “Americans will always do the right thing, only after they have tried everything else.\"\nIs that the quote you are thinking of?",
">\n\nIt was attributed to him, but tracing things down, it was apparent not said by him and I’ve heard both versions.",
">\n\nLawmakers have touted the bill as an effort to bring Ukraine's media laws closer to European Union standards as the country makes a bid to join the 27-member bloc. They have also argued that it will help counter Russian propaganda as Russia's invasion of Ukraine nears its one-year anniversary.\nBut organizations representing journalists say the law will erode press freedoms in Ukraine. Under the law, Ukraine's media regulator could block websites that are not registered with the government as news organizations, The Kyiv Independent reported on Friday. \nThe law is at odds with freedoms given to the press in other parts of Europe, the European Federation of Journalists said in a statement on Friday, according to the Times. \nEdit: because some users argued (with justification) that my post kept specific details hidden, I added the rest of the news post. I also checked the Kyiv Independent and it checks out.",
">\n\nWhile this is true, if I'm not mistaken some EU members have still spoken out against the bill - mainly because the new regulatory body will be led/run by the federal government, whereas in the EU they're generally a separate entity from the government run by civilians\nStill a step in the right direction, but I can see where people worry",
">\n\nHow is censorship a right step in any direction?",
">\n\nIt's indeed a double edged sword. On the one hand self-proclaimed news networks might spread their political agenda or incite illegal behaviour, on the other hand it's a real shortcut to control the media. This needs to be handled very carefully and probably by a body that's not interwoven with the government.",
">\n\nThere are few good options in war, especially a total war where the very survival of a country and ethnolinguistic group is at risk. Zelenskyy is probably going a bit far, but it’s hard to really blame him.",
">\n\nDepends on what the censorship is… trying to dispel discontentment with current ruling party or suppressing enemy state misinformation.",
">\n\nI think it's safe to infer the reasoning is to filter propaganda. I don't think there is much discontent with the current ruling party. Zelensky\"s approval ratings have been through the roof. Although, it's an easy power to abuse in the wrong hands.",
">\n\nI mean, can you think of a single instance in history where censorship was a net societal benefit, rolled back when no longer necessary, and not abused over the long-term? Nothing comes to mind.\nJournalists surely also know this to be the case, hence their outspoken opposition to the measure.",
">\n\nAbraham Lincoln suspending habeas corpus in the civil war is probably the best example for Americans in here. Would it be tolerated during peacetime? hell no. Would it be tolerated when the entire country is at an inflection point like the Ukraine is in 2023 and the US in 1861. Yes.\nedit: left out Abe's last name",
">\n\nWhat's it like to be on a first-name basis with Abraham Lincoln?",
">\n\nIt does make sense to block Russian \"news\" channels but its easily open to abuse",
">\n\nThis. Sounds like the Sedition Act of 1917. Easy to pass during wartime and makes sense, but probably wouldn’t get passed during peacetime. \nIt also doesn’t help that Ukraine was like #31 on the world’s corruption index prior to the war.",
">\n\nI vaguely recall reading that prior to the war Ukraine was the second most corrupt country in Europe, behind Russia.",
">\n\nThat's pretty much why Zelensky won the elections, he ran on an anti-corruption platform and has actually done a lot to combat it",
">\n\nLike what?",
">\n\nno more oligarchs",
">\n\nYou really think he ended the oligarchy? And it will only get 100x worse after the war when western businessmen come in to “fix” the country.",
">\n\nLmao this. We should all remember that he was also named in the Panama papers for holding 20+ million overseas",
">\n\nWhats so weird about successful actor having 20million to their name?",
">\n\nThey’ve been blocking the BBC on and off for years.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest lessons the world will learn from this conflict is that while Ukraine is/are the good guys… they are far, far behind a system that is akin to the western world.\nmy father’s grandfather was from Ukraine.\nAs he likes to say, Ukraine had 30 years to get their shit together so that when this day (02/24/22, Russia’s invasion which was always an inevitability if you know Ukraine, Ukraine’s history and geopolitics) arrived they’d be more than just militarily prepared.\nThey would be a part of NATO.. but Ukraine wanted to dip its toes in both democracy and wide-scale corruption.",
">\n\nFrom what I understand, the oligarchs and who grabbed up all the candy when the USSR piñata ruptured have been a big part of the problem. They have lost a lot of power and wealth, and some experts believe that this could create a political space for serious reform. I sure hope so!",
">\n\nExactly not to mention many oligarchs actually own news outlets and even television stations. I get what they’re trying to do given the war, but they have to be careful with the execution of it because it’s a step away from authoritarian control over news and media. News and media should be free but within limits too. Ex. Carlson tucker on Fox News in the US isn’t exactly unbiased. If there was a Ukrainian counterpart, they’d try to shut it down.",
">\n\nA nation in war time does not have the luxury of entertaining 100% freedom of information, especially considering the constant misinformation campaigns waged by Russia on top of its land war.",
">\n\nShutting on and off news websites? Banning political parties? BAWWW TYRANNY.\n\nPeople should not be naive, Ukraine is at war, the survival of their nation is at stake.",
">\n\nPrecisely, and psyops against Ukraine are extremely active.\nI hope they can reach Western values one day, but this is war against a much bigger Country that does not play fair. \nLet's let Ukraine win this war first and give them some time to rebuild before their culture becomes more Western.",
">\n\nHere in Adelaide, Australia, we did that. In the days before websites so he wasn't blocked, but a certain editor knew he wasn't welcome and had to leave town. He was an awful liar and very divisive. Inherited a newspaper from his dad called 'The News'.\nAfter he left town he started a company named after the Adelaide paper, NewsCorp. Rupert Murdoch was the name he went by (though his first name is really Keith, not Rupert). Wonder whatever happened to him?",
">\n\nHe got mad and decided to ruin the world.",
">\n\n\"I think it's good when we do it\" is a dangerous justification",
">\n\nYes, it is very similar to how the freedom of press declined in Russia. All medias were required to be registered by some governmental department in order to \"control the flow of information from abroad\". In no time it became the instrument of banning unwanted media.\nThough I admit banning Russian state media is for the better. Could they be banned in Russia itself, too?",
">\n\nThe thing is who defines that the media is pro-Russian. While it stays for the Ukrainian government to define, Ukrainian freedom of speech basically is being destroyed.",
">\n\nNot really enough information in the article to make an informed opinion on this.\n \nDecision was made by parliament, Zelenskyy's role in this is to sign the law, much like other world leaders don't necessarily agree with everything they have to sign.\nThe article mentions this is to allow them to ban websites not listed as media, which to me means the ability to ban any website if it isn't a registered media website. So, specifically to not allow them to block news websites so long as they are registered.\nAlso mentions this was to try and bring them more in line with EU countries, while at the same time saying it does the opposite.\n \nDo we have a link to the actual text of the new law?",
">\n\nSlippery slope",
">\n\nMost of the west have already blocked RT for their disinformation.",
">\n\nPrivate companies blocking is one thing, but governments is very different.\nA lot of laws created with \"good intentions\" are very often used for bad things, especially in countries with long history of corruption like Ukraine.",
">\n\nFrance is blocking RT",
">\n\nThese things happen during war, in every country.\nThe real test is seeing what laws will be repealed once this is all over imo.",
">\n\n\nThe real test is seeing what laws will be repealed once this is all over\n\nNone of them will be. Governments never voluntarily surrender any measure of control over the people. That's why the US is still officially in a state of national emergency 22 years after 9/11: so that the government elites can keep using their \"temporary\" emergency powers.",
">\n\nThe exact opposite has been happening in a lot of cases. The war has been used as an excuse to carry out a lot of deregulation and liberalization",
">\n\nLike when they banned left wing opposition parties?",
">\n\nArticle says websites not registered as media could be blocked. Kind of the opposite of what the headline says...",
">\n\nGovernments never relinquish power once they have it. Look at how the patriot act went from protecting our country to taking our rights. This is not a slippery slope. This is what corruption looks like. I really want Ukraine to succeed but decisions like this gives me trepidation.",
">\n\nRussia China bans websites \"fascists, ugly despots, violating human rights\" \nsomeone else does it \"understandable, well within their rights, good step\"\nAn accurate portrayal of exceptionalism",
">\n\nPeople have a hard time applying the same logic to things they like.",
">\n\nCool, there is certainly zero propaganda coming out Ukraine, for sure.",
">\n\nHa!",
">\n\nThat sounds like a healthy and not at all a government propaganda machine.",
">\n\nIt’s their country, let ‘em do as they choose. I can understand it during wartime, but in peacetime it sounds like one of those slippery slopes….",
">\n\nConsidering that before the war started everyone was talking about how corrupt the Ukraine government was I'd expect this to be abused for the duration of the war and after.",
">\n\nWestern media can be just as bad at spouting Russian propaganda. It seems like the editors have no ability to disseminate when I see headlines on APNews/Reuters weekly about how \"Putin is ready to negotiate but Ukraine refuses\".",
">\n\nI mean, this Business Insider article is a pretty fantastic case in point:\nare there reasonable concerns about this law? Yup.\nAre there extremely good reasons to pass it regardless, in a state of war against an adversary which thrives off propaganda? Also yes.\nWill Business Insider try and \"both sides\" this to get the \"BWUH 1984\" crowd arguing about their article? Final yes.",
">\n\nWell, Ukraine has never been the democratic heaven that the west is portraying it as in order to feed the propaganda. It's the most corrupt country in Europe and political opposition prior to the invasion was also suppressed.\nOne of Elensky's opposition leaders was in house arrest, although I can't remember his name. I think he escaped after the war started.",
">\n\nFreedom Fighter bans Dissent",
">\n\nThis is never good",
">\n\nYou either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.\n… Or maybe it’s to block Russian propaganda; idk",
">\n\nGovernment controlled media… if anyone thinks this is a good idea then you’re wrong",
">\n\nWhen has censorship ever been on the right side of history?",
">\n\nLincoln infamously censored free speech and the press during the American civil war, and often arrested (without due process!) anyone publishing media opposing the draft or expressing sympathy for the south",
">\n\n\"don't listen to that propaganda, listen to this propaganda\"",
">\n\nAnd so it begins.",
">\n\nI wonder how many pro-working class news outlets will suddenly be removed because they’re critical of Ukraine’s bourgeois government.",
">\n\nThe west is gonna act shocked when this war is over and it turns out Ukraine is still a corrupt place, but saying that makes me pro Russian or some shit",
">\n\nWhat irks me is them saying that being in the EU will supposedly make things better…",
">\n\nAs a country at war, censorship is not surprising. What will be telling is how they behave once the war is over.",
">\n\nSomething a totally not fascist would do, right?",
">\n\nwhen news reporting is killing your soldiers",
">\n\nHe already banned opposing political parties. What’s next?",
">\n\nThey also banned Russian and Rusyn languages schools. Its an ethnostate, simple as.",
">\n\nWar tends to be bad for freedom of speech. The Ukrainian people have a right to hear what pro-Russian media is saying.",
">\n\nAnd yet people claim that this guy is the savior of democracy? Aahahahahah, m'kay.",
">\n\nHonestly this isn't news. Countries are well known for curtailing news reporting during wartime. The US and UK did it during WW2. You don't want news media reporting the location of your troops or movements. \nThe test to democracy isn't what's passed during wartime, it's what's rescinded when war is over. When Ukraine eventually wins, the question will be how well do they transition to functioning, minimally corrupt transparent democracy. Will Zelensky and his successors freely give up power? Will the people elect fascist white nationalists who contributed to the war effort? The future remains to be seen. Well intentions can easily be lead astray.",
">\n\n“Could” is probably doing a lot of work here.",
">\n\nThe problem with that is that it shouldn’t. Laws need to be scoped heavily, or they will be rife with abuse.",
">\n\nSo censorship is suddenly ok because someone that’s not Russia did it.",
">\n\nThe headline sounds terrible. However reading helps add sense to it. \nBut I can't help to wonder whether blocking news websites due to \"weaponized media\" is a good thing or bad thing. I feel there's a gray line here that could be getting crossed and one has to question \"Is this propaganda that's being blocked, or is this our country censoring media brainwashing us in an attempt to strengthen their resolve?\" \nI'm all for Ukraine in this war, but in terms of a country censoring media, it's well.... a sticky subject. What action is the correct action when your enemies are using it as a weapon to confuse the public opinion?",
">\n\nI have no problem with this, RT is blocked in my country and Europe",
">\n\nafaik this is just ukraine setting up a media regulator along EU directives - all countries must have these mechanisms.",
">\n\nEU directives aren’t regulated by the government. Ukraine’s will be",
">\n\nDuring war time, I think that's fine. It's important to minimize Russian propaganda and to make sure no military information gets leaked.",
">\n\nIf the independent regulator can't be trusted during war time, why can it be trusted during peace time?",
">\n\nTo be very clear, this is many steps too far for peacetime and this bill isn't limited to wartime.\nI'm not Ukrainian and not an expert on the bill by any means but placing this under the same umbrella as the ~~federal~~ national government is dangerous and exposes the country to big problems down the road.\nI could defend it if the bill explicitly was for wartime. And many bills have expiration dates. But this is not good.",
">\n\nBut I thought he was about democracy?",
">\n\nGood if it's for the russian news websites only!\nNow, how about Ukraine's president fix that law forbidding romanian language to be taught to the romanian minority in Ukraine?\nAr we good neighbors respecting each other or are we not?",
">\n\nFinally someone who understands what is going on here.",
">\n\nGenius",
">\n\nAuto correct typo in my first post! Fixed.\nNot at all supporting suppression of dissent, but there has to be some way to block intentionally slander and misinformation, the hawking of all out lies through garbage like Alex Jones from bending the public discourse, and causing serious social harm. \nParading conspiracy theories or promoting propaganda created by the FSB to destabilize democracy isn't journalism, and isn't news. Legit journalism runs on facts and as such self corrects as better information comes to light. Propaganda either points to a new distraction or digs deeper into a lie, as do its adherents.",
">\n\nNo idea what people are complaining about. Ukraine had pro-Russian politicians in the parliament, russian fake news and pro-russian KGB \"church\" freely acting in Ukraine for years right before the invasion. The real question is why the didn't shut down them long before.",
">\n\nThe Smith act of 1940 comes to mind.\nUkraine is under threat of genocide. Let's see what happens after they win.",
">\n\nWe need to close/block russian or pro-russian websites.",
">\n\nOh no!",
">\n\nI just know its going to be a dark day if news reporters/programs are no longer allowed to make up news and are required to tell the entire story about something. \nSadly if you take away the freedom to blabber from a roof top, you also take away freedom of press",
">\n\nWhy not, news websites are a weapon and can be used by either side.",
">\n\nHmmmm. Interesting",
">\n\nThe beginning of the end",
">\n\nSuch a fascist",
">\n\nChurches next?",
">\n\nAlready",
">\n\nIt's very reasonable to find this offputting, but a ton of westerners are showing their chauvinism in this thread. Acting like any/every NATO country hasn't/wouldn't do this in times of war or great conflict is just asinine, governments pretty much everywhere will regulate whose propaganda is legal and whose isn't. Not saying it's always justified, but many westerners are acting like their shit don't stink.",
">\n\nBaltics and lot of EU countries have banned russian propoganda chanels. I agree with this. Russian propoganda is no joke and i would not recomend it for uninitiated.",
">\n\nThey didn’t ban Russian propaganda channels. Law allows government to block any news website they feel necessary. Given the track record of corruption in Ukrainian governance, this can’t be good.\nEdit: grammar",
">\n\nHaving a standard of what qualifies as news while engaged in a propaganda attack from a country several times your size if propferly monitored information through a board and independent laws could be a net positive\nI’m the USA the repeal of the fairness doctorine is often sited as a reason the news ended up with broadcasters telling people not to take a vaccine during a pandemic",
">\n\nWonder if Zelenskky will be Ukraine's ~~Dictator~~ President in 10 years time.",
">\n\nGet your popcorn while redditors try to tell you why this is a good thing and Zelensky can do no wrong",
">\n\nYikes",
">\n\nUkraine was corrupt as all hell before Russia invaded, and continue corrupt and not worthy of trust. Just because they're fighting for their sovereignty against Putin's evil ass doesn't mean they get a blank check to do whatever the fuck they want and pass it off as correct or for some greater good. This is authoritarian bullshit, nothing else.",
">\n\nIt's quite interesting to see the Zelensky fan boys doing their mental gymnastics to defend this policy. Having a government control what you can see is not good at all: it's a tactic thar has been used by most of the worst rulers in history: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.",
">\n\nI can understand why but honestly I think it’s a very slippery slope that most humans aren’t able to handle. Where’s the line at what is ok and what isn’t. A human decides that and humans are fallible.",
">\n\nThey were right to question this move. I hope the good President/Warrior isn't losing his head. This war is insane.",
">\n\nOne the one hand not too good depending on Implementation. One the other hand the legal framework to go against russian propaganda, misinformation and other Media based attenpts against ukraine.",
">\n\nThere is a lot of anti-Ukraine posts on OP’s profile, take this news with a grain of salt",
">\n\nThe UK blocked Russia Today and Sputnik from UK Satellites to stop their propoganda. It's a sensible thing to do in times of conflict.. we did the same to Nazi Germany also.",
">\n\nI think I just lost all respect for this guy",
">\n\nSecond most corrupt country in Europe (after Russia)... What else do you expect.",
">\n\nTough to balance government overreach against foreign interference.",
">\n\nThat's not good.",
">\n\nDon't pull a \"Russia\" bro. Wrong path to be taking.",
">\n\nYou do realize Russian propaganda channels are there and available to zombify people?\nI have spent so much of my personal time to report Youtube Channel24 videos and you have to show in each video where there is an explicit piece where there was a terrorist speech, it is tedious !! Also, noone seem to read an article cause the content is not like that at all",
">\n\nFor some people (especially here on reddit lmao) russian propaganda is any piece of informations you disagree with, and anyone saying it is either a bot or russian troll",
">\n\nRemember when the Russians invaded claiming there were Nazis in Ukraine?\nPepperidge Farms remembers.",
">\n\nPutin is not the good guy, but this doesn't mean Zelensky and the Ukranian government are a bunch of angels.",
">\n\nHe has cracked down on unions too.",
">\n\nDuring the civil war Lincoln has confederate sympathizing reports thrown in jail without trial. \nThis is not new",
">\n\nSomething seriously off with this man,",
">\n\nI’m sure when peace arrives, and one day Zelenskyy is replaced by a nefarious leader this law will also be remove right? Right?",
">\n\nLol watching this happen in slow motion while supposed lovers of freedom and the Ukrainian people just worship this man, who is an actor and he’s just gradually changing his role.",
">\n\nFreedom of speech? Hahaha, this is no better than Russia or China.",
">\n\nWhat a fucking dishonest headline. Shame on this publisher.",
">\n\nThis is a heck of a misleading headline, the law outlines blatant Russian propaganda sites as the issue. This is almost as bad as the reporting of them “banning orthodox religion” no they banned the orthodox Russian church, that church was using their religion as a cover to transport information back to Russia.",
">\n\nBad idea.",
">\n\nRussian propaganda is no joke and Ukraine probably needs the ability to block it. It's a shame this wasn't passed as wartime emergency legislation with an automatic repeal date though.",
">\n\nNothing to see here, just the good guys fighting against evil Russia 😅",
">\n\nAnd down the slippery slope we continue to slide.",
">\n\nHalf the problem with war now is the media giving g the game away ... there should 100% be restrictions on what the media can post during war time",
">\n\nWell, this headline is awful. First of all we already have such thing since 2015 I believe (one of popular examples is \"vk\" website), secondly - it's just EU standards. \nBtw we still don't have \"war censorship\", you can critisize government all you want.",
">\n\nImagine defending media censorship. China must be proud",
">\n\nRussia does exactly the same thing blocking websites that they consider to be spreading misinformation. And this is obviously bad.\nYet, the amount of double standards in this thread with people thinking that \"it's fine when Ukraine does it\" is absurd.\nBefore the war Ukraine was always on the top positions of most corrupt countries in Europe. This law WILL be abused.",
">\n\nRemember when he said he wanted to run his country more like a democracy…yeah, he just wants those dollars from the U.S",
">\n\nYup this is not the right way to do stuff... If you really wanna show that you are cleaning up the corruptness in your country then don't start making laws like this shit.",
">\n\nVery freedom loving and democratic",
">\n\nNothing says countering russian propaganda like censorship and more propaganda 👍",
">\n\nWatch Ukraine turn into a brutal dictatorship lead by the dancing with the stars jokey guy.",
">\n\nIts the same laws that govern the EU.",
">\n\nWell the corruption continues. “I think it’s good when we do it” Is not a good justification.",
">\n\nDictator for life",
">\n\nIt should only be valid as long as the war against Russia.",
">\n\nRussian \"new\" Websites, which actually are just propaganda machineries, should ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE be blocked.",
">\n\nUkraine has its own propaganda too.",
">\n\nName one nation in a conflict that doesn't censor and put out nationalistic/propaganda. Edited to clarify.",
">\n\nExactly man, that is why I'm saying that censoring is not the right call. Once the government censors you from reading international media, you are influenced by your own government and you know and think only what they want you to know and think. Having trust in your own government is ok but trusting it blindly is not. It makes you easily influenced by your own government,a puppet and as you said, every nation in conflict is making propaganda.",
">\n\nNo different than really any other country that has been in a total war. I just hope that's it's a temporary war measure, which I'm not sure it is.",
">\n\nTotally normal behavior",
">\n\nSounds like news sensorship to me..",
">\n\nHope rises. Discontent rises slightly.\nBeware of the poet's suicide.\nP.s. This is a game reference",
">\n\n1000% normal in war times. Many countries have done this before. It's impossible for Ukraine not to do this given how much Russia is investing into disinformation. Literally having speaker cars driving through the streets with propaganda 24/7. Broadcasting fake news into Ukraine through all mediums. If they get to a large group of people in the US imagine the amount of people they can influence when it comes to their neighbors.\nThe only way they can get Ukraine to lose the war is to break the people's will to fight and they're doing this by not only bombing schools, playgrounds, hospitals and powerplants to freeze them to death but also spreading propaganda to make the people second guess their leadership",
">\n\nCountries do this all the time. Even the US.\nStop trying to vilify Ukraine to appease that shit cabbage Putin. Russia invaded them, not the other way around.",
">\n\nI love watching people try to balance not being called out on ignoring Ukraine's pre-existing corruption and keeping the \"Ukraine = unquestionable good guys\" narrative.\nThere's nothing that says war HAS to be \"good guys vs bad guys\".",
">\n\nPeople have every right to complain about this. But remember Ukraine is fighting in the fields for their very existence.",
">\n\nZelensky understands Democracy more than people think. He's most likely changing it now because of the WAR so that not much information gets back to the enemy.. Remember when Ukraine did both big successful offensives they had a Media Blackout.",
">\n\nOnly state-approved propaganda is authorized",
">\n\nPeople are dumbasses in this thread, and have no idea how propaganda, and filtering media works. There's a reason why propaganda is dangerous, and there are reasons why it's blocked.\nNarrow minded AF.",
">\n\nIn war, certain civil liberties are curtailed. It is this way, it’s always been this way, and it will always be this way. War is not a game. It’s not good that this happens, of course, but it’s one of the many reasons war is bad.",
">\n\nThis definitely isn't suspicious at all",
">\n\nIt’s a standard phenomenon at war time.",
">\n\nOf course he did",
">\n\nWeeeird. Can’t wait to read all the comments somehow blaming this on Russia.",
">\n\nDoesn't sound very Democratic to me, Bob",
">\n\nI wish America would do the same or at least punish journalist & there agencies that promote there views if they are acting in a propagandists manor kinda like Cough 🦊 Cough 🦊",
">\n\nI get why they would want some censorship after the media leaked their military strategy, but I think it should be very limited",
">\n\nSo he is fascist?",
">\n\nyep that's what a dictator does. also take note when russian invaded, they had to scramble to deliver guns to the citizens and were ill prepared. this is what NOT having a 2nd amendment looks like. a complete clusterF",
">\n\nUh oh",
">\n\nBiden probably gave him the idea",
">\n\nHe's been silencing dissenting voices for some time now nothing new, except now he's a genuine dictator.",
">\n\nSo you mean to tell me that all this money the United States is sending to Ukraine isn’t really to save democracy? Didn’t see that coming.",
">\n\nDetractors paint this as some nefarious bid for authoritarianism when in reality it is the usual sort of issue that democratic governments face.\nIn Canada, the Canadian Television and Radio Commission (CRTC) is supposed to operate at arms length from the government but the head and Governor in Council are determined by the Prime Minister and Cabinet.\nUltimately, whether or not a body is elected by government or is “independent”, the reality is that money talks and the oligarchical media empires will manipulate either the politicians or independent boards to get their way.\nThe CRTC in Canada for instance, is seen by the public to serve the best interests of the media empires, not Canadians."
] |
>
Anybody who think this is something that only applies temporarily are human golden retrievers | [
"Just curious, how did the US regulate media during WWII if at all? Obviously the war department was churning out war news and propaganda, but did they censor/restrict any media from being published?",
">\n\nYes, absolutely. They formed the Office of Censorship and heavily regulated the press, especially radio. But it was almost entirely geared towards preventing information on troop movements and weather from getting out, and coded enemy messages from getting in. They didn't force stations to broadcast propaganda or ban negative stories, and most of the restrictions were followed voluntarily.\nThere was also the Office of War Information which was responsible for producing propaganda and rejected film scripts that were critical or negative regarding the war effort - but they did not restrict the press to my knowledge.",
">\n\nSuper interesting! Thanks for sharing. Yes it seems this was a bit more functional about what comes in and out of the country, not necessarily with what’s published domestically as far as swaying public opinion. Also TIL the catch phrase “loose lips sink ships” came from this agency.\nThe voluntary aspect is somewhat enlightening as to how unified the country was in the war effort. The cynic in me makes me even more curious if there was other censorship at play outside of this agency that helped create that sentiment. I feel like someone would have replied about some landmark Supreme Court case by now though if that were the case.",
">\n\nAmerican's have a curious ability to get in line when there is a clear and present danger to the nation. Someone summed it up with \"You can always count on American's to do the right thing when they have no other option.\"",
">\n\nWinston Churchill famously stated “Americans will always do the right thing, only after they have tried everything else.\"\nIs that the quote you are thinking of?",
">\n\nIt was attributed to him, but tracing things down, it was apparent not said by him and I’ve heard both versions.",
">\n\nLawmakers have touted the bill as an effort to bring Ukraine's media laws closer to European Union standards as the country makes a bid to join the 27-member bloc. They have also argued that it will help counter Russian propaganda as Russia's invasion of Ukraine nears its one-year anniversary.\nBut organizations representing journalists say the law will erode press freedoms in Ukraine. Under the law, Ukraine's media regulator could block websites that are not registered with the government as news organizations, The Kyiv Independent reported on Friday. \nThe law is at odds with freedoms given to the press in other parts of Europe, the European Federation of Journalists said in a statement on Friday, according to the Times. \nEdit: because some users argued (with justification) that my post kept specific details hidden, I added the rest of the news post. I also checked the Kyiv Independent and it checks out.",
">\n\nWhile this is true, if I'm not mistaken some EU members have still spoken out against the bill - mainly because the new regulatory body will be led/run by the federal government, whereas in the EU they're generally a separate entity from the government run by civilians\nStill a step in the right direction, but I can see where people worry",
">\n\nHow is censorship a right step in any direction?",
">\n\nIt's indeed a double edged sword. On the one hand self-proclaimed news networks might spread their political agenda or incite illegal behaviour, on the other hand it's a real shortcut to control the media. This needs to be handled very carefully and probably by a body that's not interwoven with the government.",
">\n\nThere are few good options in war, especially a total war where the very survival of a country and ethnolinguistic group is at risk. Zelenskyy is probably going a bit far, but it’s hard to really blame him.",
">\n\nDepends on what the censorship is… trying to dispel discontentment with current ruling party or suppressing enemy state misinformation.",
">\n\nI think it's safe to infer the reasoning is to filter propaganda. I don't think there is much discontent with the current ruling party. Zelensky\"s approval ratings have been through the roof. Although, it's an easy power to abuse in the wrong hands.",
">\n\nI mean, can you think of a single instance in history where censorship was a net societal benefit, rolled back when no longer necessary, and not abused over the long-term? Nothing comes to mind.\nJournalists surely also know this to be the case, hence their outspoken opposition to the measure.",
">\n\nAbraham Lincoln suspending habeas corpus in the civil war is probably the best example for Americans in here. Would it be tolerated during peacetime? hell no. Would it be tolerated when the entire country is at an inflection point like the Ukraine is in 2023 and the US in 1861. Yes.\nedit: left out Abe's last name",
">\n\nWhat's it like to be on a first-name basis with Abraham Lincoln?",
">\n\nIt does make sense to block Russian \"news\" channels but its easily open to abuse",
">\n\nThis. Sounds like the Sedition Act of 1917. Easy to pass during wartime and makes sense, but probably wouldn’t get passed during peacetime. \nIt also doesn’t help that Ukraine was like #31 on the world’s corruption index prior to the war.",
">\n\nI vaguely recall reading that prior to the war Ukraine was the second most corrupt country in Europe, behind Russia.",
">\n\nThat's pretty much why Zelensky won the elections, he ran on an anti-corruption platform and has actually done a lot to combat it",
">\n\nLike what?",
">\n\nno more oligarchs",
">\n\nYou really think he ended the oligarchy? And it will only get 100x worse after the war when western businessmen come in to “fix” the country.",
">\n\nLmao this. We should all remember that he was also named in the Panama papers for holding 20+ million overseas",
">\n\nWhats so weird about successful actor having 20million to their name?",
">\n\nThey’ve been blocking the BBC on and off for years.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest lessons the world will learn from this conflict is that while Ukraine is/are the good guys… they are far, far behind a system that is akin to the western world.\nmy father’s grandfather was from Ukraine.\nAs he likes to say, Ukraine had 30 years to get their shit together so that when this day (02/24/22, Russia’s invasion which was always an inevitability if you know Ukraine, Ukraine’s history and geopolitics) arrived they’d be more than just militarily prepared.\nThey would be a part of NATO.. but Ukraine wanted to dip its toes in both democracy and wide-scale corruption.",
">\n\nFrom what I understand, the oligarchs and who grabbed up all the candy when the USSR piñata ruptured have been a big part of the problem. They have lost a lot of power and wealth, and some experts believe that this could create a political space for serious reform. I sure hope so!",
">\n\nExactly not to mention many oligarchs actually own news outlets and even television stations. I get what they’re trying to do given the war, but they have to be careful with the execution of it because it’s a step away from authoritarian control over news and media. News and media should be free but within limits too. Ex. Carlson tucker on Fox News in the US isn’t exactly unbiased. If there was a Ukrainian counterpart, they’d try to shut it down.",
">\n\nA nation in war time does not have the luxury of entertaining 100% freedom of information, especially considering the constant misinformation campaigns waged by Russia on top of its land war.",
">\n\nShutting on and off news websites? Banning political parties? BAWWW TYRANNY.\n\nPeople should not be naive, Ukraine is at war, the survival of their nation is at stake.",
">\n\nPrecisely, and psyops against Ukraine are extremely active.\nI hope they can reach Western values one day, but this is war against a much bigger Country that does not play fair. \nLet's let Ukraine win this war first and give them some time to rebuild before their culture becomes more Western.",
">\n\nHere in Adelaide, Australia, we did that. In the days before websites so he wasn't blocked, but a certain editor knew he wasn't welcome and had to leave town. He was an awful liar and very divisive. Inherited a newspaper from his dad called 'The News'.\nAfter he left town he started a company named after the Adelaide paper, NewsCorp. Rupert Murdoch was the name he went by (though his first name is really Keith, not Rupert). Wonder whatever happened to him?",
">\n\nHe got mad and decided to ruin the world.",
">\n\n\"I think it's good when we do it\" is a dangerous justification",
">\n\nYes, it is very similar to how the freedom of press declined in Russia. All medias were required to be registered by some governmental department in order to \"control the flow of information from abroad\". In no time it became the instrument of banning unwanted media.\nThough I admit banning Russian state media is for the better. Could they be banned in Russia itself, too?",
">\n\nThe thing is who defines that the media is pro-Russian. While it stays for the Ukrainian government to define, Ukrainian freedom of speech basically is being destroyed.",
">\n\nNot really enough information in the article to make an informed opinion on this.\n \nDecision was made by parliament, Zelenskyy's role in this is to sign the law, much like other world leaders don't necessarily agree with everything they have to sign.\nThe article mentions this is to allow them to ban websites not listed as media, which to me means the ability to ban any website if it isn't a registered media website. So, specifically to not allow them to block news websites so long as they are registered.\nAlso mentions this was to try and bring them more in line with EU countries, while at the same time saying it does the opposite.\n \nDo we have a link to the actual text of the new law?",
">\n\nSlippery slope",
">\n\nMost of the west have already blocked RT for their disinformation.",
">\n\nPrivate companies blocking is one thing, but governments is very different.\nA lot of laws created with \"good intentions\" are very often used for bad things, especially in countries with long history of corruption like Ukraine.",
">\n\nFrance is blocking RT",
">\n\nThese things happen during war, in every country.\nThe real test is seeing what laws will be repealed once this is all over imo.",
">\n\n\nThe real test is seeing what laws will be repealed once this is all over\n\nNone of them will be. Governments never voluntarily surrender any measure of control over the people. That's why the US is still officially in a state of national emergency 22 years after 9/11: so that the government elites can keep using their \"temporary\" emergency powers.",
">\n\nThe exact opposite has been happening in a lot of cases. The war has been used as an excuse to carry out a lot of deregulation and liberalization",
">\n\nLike when they banned left wing opposition parties?",
">\n\nArticle says websites not registered as media could be blocked. Kind of the opposite of what the headline says...",
">\n\nGovernments never relinquish power once they have it. Look at how the patriot act went from protecting our country to taking our rights. This is not a slippery slope. This is what corruption looks like. I really want Ukraine to succeed but decisions like this gives me trepidation.",
">\n\nRussia China bans websites \"fascists, ugly despots, violating human rights\" \nsomeone else does it \"understandable, well within their rights, good step\"\nAn accurate portrayal of exceptionalism",
">\n\nPeople have a hard time applying the same logic to things they like.",
">\n\nCool, there is certainly zero propaganda coming out Ukraine, for sure.",
">\n\nHa!",
">\n\nThat sounds like a healthy and not at all a government propaganda machine.",
">\n\nIt’s their country, let ‘em do as they choose. I can understand it during wartime, but in peacetime it sounds like one of those slippery slopes….",
">\n\nConsidering that before the war started everyone was talking about how corrupt the Ukraine government was I'd expect this to be abused for the duration of the war and after.",
">\n\nWestern media can be just as bad at spouting Russian propaganda. It seems like the editors have no ability to disseminate when I see headlines on APNews/Reuters weekly about how \"Putin is ready to negotiate but Ukraine refuses\".",
">\n\nI mean, this Business Insider article is a pretty fantastic case in point:\nare there reasonable concerns about this law? Yup.\nAre there extremely good reasons to pass it regardless, in a state of war against an adversary which thrives off propaganda? Also yes.\nWill Business Insider try and \"both sides\" this to get the \"BWUH 1984\" crowd arguing about their article? Final yes.",
">\n\nWell, Ukraine has never been the democratic heaven that the west is portraying it as in order to feed the propaganda. It's the most corrupt country in Europe and political opposition prior to the invasion was also suppressed.\nOne of Elensky's opposition leaders was in house arrest, although I can't remember his name. I think he escaped after the war started.",
">\n\nFreedom Fighter bans Dissent",
">\n\nThis is never good",
">\n\nYou either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.\n… Or maybe it’s to block Russian propaganda; idk",
">\n\nGovernment controlled media… if anyone thinks this is a good idea then you’re wrong",
">\n\nWhen has censorship ever been on the right side of history?",
">\n\nLincoln infamously censored free speech and the press during the American civil war, and often arrested (without due process!) anyone publishing media opposing the draft or expressing sympathy for the south",
">\n\n\"don't listen to that propaganda, listen to this propaganda\"",
">\n\nAnd so it begins.",
">\n\nI wonder how many pro-working class news outlets will suddenly be removed because they’re critical of Ukraine’s bourgeois government.",
">\n\nThe west is gonna act shocked when this war is over and it turns out Ukraine is still a corrupt place, but saying that makes me pro Russian or some shit",
">\n\nWhat irks me is them saying that being in the EU will supposedly make things better…",
">\n\nAs a country at war, censorship is not surprising. What will be telling is how they behave once the war is over.",
">\n\nSomething a totally not fascist would do, right?",
">\n\nwhen news reporting is killing your soldiers",
">\n\nHe already banned opposing political parties. What’s next?",
">\n\nThey also banned Russian and Rusyn languages schools. Its an ethnostate, simple as.",
">\n\nWar tends to be bad for freedom of speech. The Ukrainian people have a right to hear what pro-Russian media is saying.",
">\n\nAnd yet people claim that this guy is the savior of democracy? Aahahahahah, m'kay.",
">\n\nHonestly this isn't news. Countries are well known for curtailing news reporting during wartime. The US and UK did it during WW2. You don't want news media reporting the location of your troops or movements. \nThe test to democracy isn't what's passed during wartime, it's what's rescinded when war is over. When Ukraine eventually wins, the question will be how well do they transition to functioning, minimally corrupt transparent democracy. Will Zelensky and his successors freely give up power? Will the people elect fascist white nationalists who contributed to the war effort? The future remains to be seen. Well intentions can easily be lead astray.",
">\n\n“Could” is probably doing a lot of work here.",
">\n\nThe problem with that is that it shouldn’t. Laws need to be scoped heavily, or they will be rife with abuse.",
">\n\nSo censorship is suddenly ok because someone that’s not Russia did it.",
">\n\nThe headline sounds terrible. However reading helps add sense to it. \nBut I can't help to wonder whether blocking news websites due to \"weaponized media\" is a good thing or bad thing. I feel there's a gray line here that could be getting crossed and one has to question \"Is this propaganda that's being blocked, or is this our country censoring media brainwashing us in an attempt to strengthen their resolve?\" \nI'm all for Ukraine in this war, but in terms of a country censoring media, it's well.... a sticky subject. What action is the correct action when your enemies are using it as a weapon to confuse the public opinion?",
">\n\nI have no problem with this, RT is blocked in my country and Europe",
">\n\nafaik this is just ukraine setting up a media regulator along EU directives - all countries must have these mechanisms.",
">\n\nEU directives aren’t regulated by the government. Ukraine’s will be",
">\n\nDuring war time, I think that's fine. It's important to minimize Russian propaganda and to make sure no military information gets leaked.",
">\n\nIf the independent regulator can't be trusted during war time, why can it be trusted during peace time?",
">\n\nTo be very clear, this is many steps too far for peacetime and this bill isn't limited to wartime.\nI'm not Ukrainian and not an expert on the bill by any means but placing this under the same umbrella as the ~~federal~~ national government is dangerous and exposes the country to big problems down the road.\nI could defend it if the bill explicitly was for wartime. And many bills have expiration dates. But this is not good.",
">\n\nBut I thought he was about democracy?",
">\n\nGood if it's for the russian news websites only!\nNow, how about Ukraine's president fix that law forbidding romanian language to be taught to the romanian minority in Ukraine?\nAr we good neighbors respecting each other or are we not?",
">\n\nFinally someone who understands what is going on here.",
">\n\nGenius",
">\n\nAuto correct typo in my first post! Fixed.\nNot at all supporting suppression of dissent, but there has to be some way to block intentionally slander and misinformation, the hawking of all out lies through garbage like Alex Jones from bending the public discourse, and causing serious social harm. \nParading conspiracy theories or promoting propaganda created by the FSB to destabilize democracy isn't journalism, and isn't news. Legit journalism runs on facts and as such self corrects as better information comes to light. Propaganda either points to a new distraction or digs deeper into a lie, as do its adherents.",
">\n\nNo idea what people are complaining about. Ukraine had pro-Russian politicians in the parliament, russian fake news and pro-russian KGB \"church\" freely acting in Ukraine for years right before the invasion. The real question is why the didn't shut down them long before.",
">\n\nThe Smith act of 1940 comes to mind.\nUkraine is under threat of genocide. Let's see what happens after they win.",
">\n\nWe need to close/block russian or pro-russian websites.",
">\n\nOh no!",
">\n\nI just know its going to be a dark day if news reporters/programs are no longer allowed to make up news and are required to tell the entire story about something. \nSadly if you take away the freedom to blabber from a roof top, you also take away freedom of press",
">\n\nWhy not, news websites are a weapon and can be used by either side.",
">\n\nHmmmm. Interesting",
">\n\nThe beginning of the end",
">\n\nSuch a fascist",
">\n\nChurches next?",
">\n\nAlready",
">\n\nIt's very reasonable to find this offputting, but a ton of westerners are showing their chauvinism in this thread. Acting like any/every NATO country hasn't/wouldn't do this in times of war or great conflict is just asinine, governments pretty much everywhere will regulate whose propaganda is legal and whose isn't. Not saying it's always justified, but many westerners are acting like their shit don't stink.",
">\n\nBaltics and lot of EU countries have banned russian propoganda chanels. I agree with this. Russian propoganda is no joke and i would not recomend it for uninitiated.",
">\n\nThey didn’t ban Russian propaganda channels. Law allows government to block any news website they feel necessary. Given the track record of corruption in Ukrainian governance, this can’t be good.\nEdit: grammar",
">\n\nHaving a standard of what qualifies as news while engaged in a propaganda attack from a country several times your size if propferly monitored information through a board and independent laws could be a net positive\nI’m the USA the repeal of the fairness doctorine is often sited as a reason the news ended up with broadcasters telling people not to take a vaccine during a pandemic",
">\n\nWonder if Zelenskky will be Ukraine's ~~Dictator~~ President in 10 years time.",
">\n\nGet your popcorn while redditors try to tell you why this is a good thing and Zelensky can do no wrong",
">\n\nYikes",
">\n\nUkraine was corrupt as all hell before Russia invaded, and continue corrupt and not worthy of trust. Just because they're fighting for their sovereignty against Putin's evil ass doesn't mean they get a blank check to do whatever the fuck they want and pass it off as correct or for some greater good. This is authoritarian bullshit, nothing else.",
">\n\nIt's quite interesting to see the Zelensky fan boys doing their mental gymnastics to defend this policy. Having a government control what you can see is not good at all: it's a tactic thar has been used by most of the worst rulers in history: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.",
">\n\nI can understand why but honestly I think it’s a very slippery slope that most humans aren’t able to handle. Where’s the line at what is ok and what isn’t. A human decides that and humans are fallible.",
">\n\nThey were right to question this move. I hope the good President/Warrior isn't losing his head. This war is insane.",
">\n\nOne the one hand not too good depending on Implementation. One the other hand the legal framework to go against russian propaganda, misinformation and other Media based attenpts against ukraine.",
">\n\nThere is a lot of anti-Ukraine posts on OP’s profile, take this news with a grain of salt",
">\n\nThe UK blocked Russia Today and Sputnik from UK Satellites to stop their propoganda. It's a sensible thing to do in times of conflict.. we did the same to Nazi Germany also.",
">\n\nI think I just lost all respect for this guy",
">\n\nSecond most corrupt country in Europe (after Russia)... What else do you expect.",
">\n\nTough to balance government overreach against foreign interference.",
">\n\nThat's not good.",
">\n\nDon't pull a \"Russia\" bro. Wrong path to be taking.",
">\n\nYou do realize Russian propaganda channels are there and available to zombify people?\nI have spent so much of my personal time to report Youtube Channel24 videos and you have to show in each video where there is an explicit piece where there was a terrorist speech, it is tedious !! Also, noone seem to read an article cause the content is not like that at all",
">\n\nFor some people (especially here on reddit lmao) russian propaganda is any piece of informations you disagree with, and anyone saying it is either a bot or russian troll",
">\n\nRemember when the Russians invaded claiming there were Nazis in Ukraine?\nPepperidge Farms remembers.",
">\n\nPutin is not the good guy, but this doesn't mean Zelensky and the Ukranian government are a bunch of angels.",
">\n\nHe has cracked down on unions too.",
">\n\nDuring the civil war Lincoln has confederate sympathizing reports thrown in jail without trial. \nThis is not new",
">\n\nSomething seriously off with this man,",
">\n\nI’m sure when peace arrives, and one day Zelenskyy is replaced by a nefarious leader this law will also be remove right? Right?",
">\n\nLol watching this happen in slow motion while supposed lovers of freedom and the Ukrainian people just worship this man, who is an actor and he’s just gradually changing his role.",
">\n\nFreedom of speech? Hahaha, this is no better than Russia or China.",
">\n\nWhat a fucking dishonest headline. Shame on this publisher.",
">\n\nThis is a heck of a misleading headline, the law outlines blatant Russian propaganda sites as the issue. This is almost as bad as the reporting of them “banning orthodox religion” no they banned the orthodox Russian church, that church was using their religion as a cover to transport information back to Russia.",
">\n\nBad idea.",
">\n\nRussian propaganda is no joke and Ukraine probably needs the ability to block it. It's a shame this wasn't passed as wartime emergency legislation with an automatic repeal date though.",
">\n\nNothing to see here, just the good guys fighting against evil Russia 😅",
">\n\nAnd down the slippery slope we continue to slide.",
">\n\nHalf the problem with war now is the media giving g the game away ... there should 100% be restrictions on what the media can post during war time",
">\n\nWell, this headline is awful. First of all we already have such thing since 2015 I believe (one of popular examples is \"vk\" website), secondly - it's just EU standards. \nBtw we still don't have \"war censorship\", you can critisize government all you want.",
">\n\nImagine defending media censorship. China must be proud",
">\n\nRussia does exactly the same thing blocking websites that they consider to be spreading misinformation. And this is obviously bad.\nYet, the amount of double standards in this thread with people thinking that \"it's fine when Ukraine does it\" is absurd.\nBefore the war Ukraine was always on the top positions of most corrupt countries in Europe. This law WILL be abused.",
">\n\nRemember when he said he wanted to run his country more like a democracy…yeah, he just wants those dollars from the U.S",
">\n\nYup this is not the right way to do stuff... If you really wanna show that you are cleaning up the corruptness in your country then don't start making laws like this shit.",
">\n\nVery freedom loving and democratic",
">\n\nNothing says countering russian propaganda like censorship and more propaganda 👍",
">\n\nWatch Ukraine turn into a brutal dictatorship lead by the dancing with the stars jokey guy.",
">\n\nIts the same laws that govern the EU.",
">\n\nWell the corruption continues. “I think it’s good when we do it” Is not a good justification.",
">\n\nDictator for life",
">\n\nIt should only be valid as long as the war against Russia.",
">\n\nRussian \"new\" Websites, which actually are just propaganda machineries, should ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE be blocked.",
">\n\nUkraine has its own propaganda too.",
">\n\nName one nation in a conflict that doesn't censor and put out nationalistic/propaganda. Edited to clarify.",
">\n\nExactly man, that is why I'm saying that censoring is not the right call. Once the government censors you from reading international media, you are influenced by your own government and you know and think only what they want you to know and think. Having trust in your own government is ok but trusting it blindly is not. It makes you easily influenced by your own government,a puppet and as you said, every nation in conflict is making propaganda.",
">\n\nNo different than really any other country that has been in a total war. I just hope that's it's a temporary war measure, which I'm not sure it is.",
">\n\nTotally normal behavior",
">\n\nSounds like news sensorship to me..",
">\n\nHope rises. Discontent rises slightly.\nBeware of the poet's suicide.\nP.s. This is a game reference",
">\n\n1000% normal in war times. Many countries have done this before. It's impossible for Ukraine not to do this given how much Russia is investing into disinformation. Literally having speaker cars driving through the streets with propaganda 24/7. Broadcasting fake news into Ukraine through all mediums. If they get to a large group of people in the US imagine the amount of people they can influence when it comes to their neighbors.\nThe only way they can get Ukraine to lose the war is to break the people's will to fight and they're doing this by not only bombing schools, playgrounds, hospitals and powerplants to freeze them to death but also spreading propaganda to make the people second guess their leadership",
">\n\nCountries do this all the time. Even the US.\nStop trying to vilify Ukraine to appease that shit cabbage Putin. Russia invaded them, not the other way around.",
">\n\nI love watching people try to balance not being called out on ignoring Ukraine's pre-existing corruption and keeping the \"Ukraine = unquestionable good guys\" narrative.\nThere's nothing that says war HAS to be \"good guys vs bad guys\".",
">\n\nPeople have every right to complain about this. But remember Ukraine is fighting in the fields for their very existence.",
">\n\nZelensky understands Democracy more than people think. He's most likely changing it now because of the WAR so that not much information gets back to the enemy.. Remember when Ukraine did both big successful offensives they had a Media Blackout.",
">\n\nOnly state-approved propaganda is authorized",
">\n\nPeople are dumbasses in this thread, and have no idea how propaganda, and filtering media works. There's a reason why propaganda is dangerous, and there are reasons why it's blocked.\nNarrow minded AF.",
">\n\nIn war, certain civil liberties are curtailed. It is this way, it’s always been this way, and it will always be this way. War is not a game. It’s not good that this happens, of course, but it’s one of the many reasons war is bad.",
">\n\nThis definitely isn't suspicious at all",
">\n\nIt’s a standard phenomenon at war time.",
">\n\nOf course he did",
">\n\nWeeeird. Can’t wait to read all the comments somehow blaming this on Russia.",
">\n\nDoesn't sound very Democratic to me, Bob",
">\n\nI wish America would do the same or at least punish journalist & there agencies that promote there views if they are acting in a propagandists manor kinda like Cough 🦊 Cough 🦊",
">\n\nI get why they would want some censorship after the media leaked their military strategy, but I think it should be very limited",
">\n\nSo he is fascist?",
">\n\nyep that's what a dictator does. also take note when russian invaded, they had to scramble to deliver guns to the citizens and were ill prepared. this is what NOT having a 2nd amendment looks like. a complete clusterF",
">\n\nUh oh",
">\n\nBiden probably gave him the idea",
">\n\nHe's been silencing dissenting voices for some time now nothing new, except now he's a genuine dictator.",
">\n\nSo you mean to tell me that all this money the United States is sending to Ukraine isn’t really to save democracy? Didn’t see that coming.",
">\n\nDetractors paint this as some nefarious bid for authoritarianism when in reality it is the usual sort of issue that democratic governments face.\nIn Canada, the Canadian Television and Radio Commission (CRTC) is supposed to operate at arms length from the government but the head and Governor in Council are determined by the Prime Minister and Cabinet.\nUltimately, whether or not a body is elected by government or is “independent”, the reality is that money talks and the oligarchical media empires will manipulate either the politicians or independent boards to get their way.\nThe CRTC in Canada for instance, is seen by the public to serve the best interests of the media empires, not Canadians.",
">\n\nWhen a western democracy is fighting for its life, it’s important to keep a United front. \nUkraine has A LOT of Russian propaganda that, like we’ve seen from the American right, have pushed baseless conspiracies that only hurt and divide a country."
] |
>
Yup just like Canada’s PM Trudeau. | [
"Just curious, how did the US regulate media during WWII if at all? Obviously the war department was churning out war news and propaganda, but did they censor/restrict any media from being published?",
">\n\nYes, absolutely. They formed the Office of Censorship and heavily regulated the press, especially radio. But it was almost entirely geared towards preventing information on troop movements and weather from getting out, and coded enemy messages from getting in. They didn't force stations to broadcast propaganda or ban negative stories, and most of the restrictions were followed voluntarily.\nThere was also the Office of War Information which was responsible for producing propaganda and rejected film scripts that were critical or negative regarding the war effort - but they did not restrict the press to my knowledge.",
">\n\nSuper interesting! Thanks for sharing. Yes it seems this was a bit more functional about what comes in and out of the country, not necessarily with what’s published domestically as far as swaying public opinion. Also TIL the catch phrase “loose lips sink ships” came from this agency.\nThe voluntary aspect is somewhat enlightening as to how unified the country was in the war effort. The cynic in me makes me even more curious if there was other censorship at play outside of this agency that helped create that sentiment. I feel like someone would have replied about some landmark Supreme Court case by now though if that were the case.",
">\n\nAmerican's have a curious ability to get in line when there is a clear and present danger to the nation. Someone summed it up with \"You can always count on American's to do the right thing when they have no other option.\"",
">\n\nWinston Churchill famously stated “Americans will always do the right thing, only after they have tried everything else.\"\nIs that the quote you are thinking of?",
">\n\nIt was attributed to him, but tracing things down, it was apparent not said by him and I’ve heard both versions.",
">\n\nLawmakers have touted the bill as an effort to bring Ukraine's media laws closer to European Union standards as the country makes a bid to join the 27-member bloc. They have also argued that it will help counter Russian propaganda as Russia's invasion of Ukraine nears its one-year anniversary.\nBut organizations representing journalists say the law will erode press freedoms in Ukraine. Under the law, Ukraine's media regulator could block websites that are not registered with the government as news organizations, The Kyiv Independent reported on Friday. \nThe law is at odds with freedoms given to the press in other parts of Europe, the European Federation of Journalists said in a statement on Friday, according to the Times. \nEdit: because some users argued (with justification) that my post kept specific details hidden, I added the rest of the news post. I also checked the Kyiv Independent and it checks out.",
">\n\nWhile this is true, if I'm not mistaken some EU members have still spoken out against the bill - mainly because the new regulatory body will be led/run by the federal government, whereas in the EU they're generally a separate entity from the government run by civilians\nStill a step in the right direction, but I can see where people worry",
">\n\nHow is censorship a right step in any direction?",
">\n\nIt's indeed a double edged sword. On the one hand self-proclaimed news networks might spread their political agenda or incite illegal behaviour, on the other hand it's a real shortcut to control the media. This needs to be handled very carefully and probably by a body that's not interwoven with the government.",
">\n\nThere are few good options in war, especially a total war where the very survival of a country and ethnolinguistic group is at risk. Zelenskyy is probably going a bit far, but it’s hard to really blame him.",
">\n\nDepends on what the censorship is… trying to dispel discontentment with current ruling party or suppressing enemy state misinformation.",
">\n\nI think it's safe to infer the reasoning is to filter propaganda. I don't think there is much discontent with the current ruling party. Zelensky\"s approval ratings have been through the roof. Although, it's an easy power to abuse in the wrong hands.",
">\n\nI mean, can you think of a single instance in history where censorship was a net societal benefit, rolled back when no longer necessary, and not abused over the long-term? Nothing comes to mind.\nJournalists surely also know this to be the case, hence their outspoken opposition to the measure.",
">\n\nAbraham Lincoln suspending habeas corpus in the civil war is probably the best example for Americans in here. Would it be tolerated during peacetime? hell no. Would it be tolerated when the entire country is at an inflection point like the Ukraine is in 2023 and the US in 1861. Yes.\nedit: left out Abe's last name",
">\n\nWhat's it like to be on a first-name basis with Abraham Lincoln?",
">\n\nIt does make sense to block Russian \"news\" channels but its easily open to abuse",
">\n\nThis. Sounds like the Sedition Act of 1917. Easy to pass during wartime and makes sense, but probably wouldn’t get passed during peacetime. \nIt also doesn’t help that Ukraine was like #31 on the world’s corruption index prior to the war.",
">\n\nI vaguely recall reading that prior to the war Ukraine was the second most corrupt country in Europe, behind Russia.",
">\n\nThat's pretty much why Zelensky won the elections, he ran on an anti-corruption platform and has actually done a lot to combat it",
">\n\nLike what?",
">\n\nno more oligarchs",
">\n\nYou really think he ended the oligarchy? And it will only get 100x worse after the war when western businessmen come in to “fix” the country.",
">\n\nLmao this. We should all remember that he was also named in the Panama papers for holding 20+ million overseas",
">\n\nWhats so weird about successful actor having 20million to their name?",
">\n\nThey’ve been blocking the BBC on and off for years.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest lessons the world will learn from this conflict is that while Ukraine is/are the good guys… they are far, far behind a system that is akin to the western world.\nmy father’s grandfather was from Ukraine.\nAs he likes to say, Ukraine had 30 years to get their shit together so that when this day (02/24/22, Russia’s invasion which was always an inevitability if you know Ukraine, Ukraine’s history and geopolitics) arrived they’d be more than just militarily prepared.\nThey would be a part of NATO.. but Ukraine wanted to dip its toes in both democracy and wide-scale corruption.",
">\n\nFrom what I understand, the oligarchs and who grabbed up all the candy when the USSR piñata ruptured have been a big part of the problem. They have lost a lot of power and wealth, and some experts believe that this could create a political space for serious reform. I sure hope so!",
">\n\nExactly not to mention many oligarchs actually own news outlets and even television stations. I get what they’re trying to do given the war, but they have to be careful with the execution of it because it’s a step away from authoritarian control over news and media. News and media should be free but within limits too. Ex. Carlson tucker on Fox News in the US isn’t exactly unbiased. If there was a Ukrainian counterpart, they’d try to shut it down.",
">\n\nA nation in war time does not have the luxury of entertaining 100% freedom of information, especially considering the constant misinformation campaigns waged by Russia on top of its land war.",
">\n\nShutting on and off news websites? Banning political parties? BAWWW TYRANNY.\n\nPeople should not be naive, Ukraine is at war, the survival of their nation is at stake.",
">\n\nPrecisely, and psyops against Ukraine are extremely active.\nI hope they can reach Western values one day, but this is war against a much bigger Country that does not play fair. \nLet's let Ukraine win this war first and give them some time to rebuild before their culture becomes more Western.",
">\n\nHere in Adelaide, Australia, we did that. In the days before websites so he wasn't blocked, but a certain editor knew he wasn't welcome and had to leave town. He was an awful liar and very divisive. Inherited a newspaper from his dad called 'The News'.\nAfter he left town he started a company named after the Adelaide paper, NewsCorp. Rupert Murdoch was the name he went by (though his first name is really Keith, not Rupert). Wonder whatever happened to him?",
">\n\nHe got mad and decided to ruin the world.",
">\n\n\"I think it's good when we do it\" is a dangerous justification",
">\n\nYes, it is very similar to how the freedom of press declined in Russia. All medias were required to be registered by some governmental department in order to \"control the flow of information from abroad\". In no time it became the instrument of banning unwanted media.\nThough I admit banning Russian state media is for the better. Could they be banned in Russia itself, too?",
">\n\nThe thing is who defines that the media is pro-Russian. While it stays for the Ukrainian government to define, Ukrainian freedom of speech basically is being destroyed.",
">\n\nNot really enough information in the article to make an informed opinion on this.\n \nDecision was made by parliament, Zelenskyy's role in this is to sign the law, much like other world leaders don't necessarily agree with everything they have to sign.\nThe article mentions this is to allow them to ban websites not listed as media, which to me means the ability to ban any website if it isn't a registered media website. So, specifically to not allow them to block news websites so long as they are registered.\nAlso mentions this was to try and bring them more in line with EU countries, while at the same time saying it does the opposite.\n \nDo we have a link to the actual text of the new law?",
">\n\nSlippery slope",
">\n\nMost of the west have already blocked RT for their disinformation.",
">\n\nPrivate companies blocking is one thing, but governments is very different.\nA lot of laws created with \"good intentions\" are very often used for bad things, especially in countries with long history of corruption like Ukraine.",
">\n\nFrance is blocking RT",
">\n\nThese things happen during war, in every country.\nThe real test is seeing what laws will be repealed once this is all over imo.",
">\n\n\nThe real test is seeing what laws will be repealed once this is all over\n\nNone of them will be. Governments never voluntarily surrender any measure of control over the people. That's why the US is still officially in a state of national emergency 22 years after 9/11: so that the government elites can keep using their \"temporary\" emergency powers.",
">\n\nThe exact opposite has been happening in a lot of cases. The war has been used as an excuse to carry out a lot of deregulation and liberalization",
">\n\nLike when they banned left wing opposition parties?",
">\n\nArticle says websites not registered as media could be blocked. Kind of the opposite of what the headline says...",
">\n\nGovernments never relinquish power once they have it. Look at how the patriot act went from protecting our country to taking our rights. This is not a slippery slope. This is what corruption looks like. I really want Ukraine to succeed but decisions like this gives me trepidation.",
">\n\nRussia China bans websites \"fascists, ugly despots, violating human rights\" \nsomeone else does it \"understandable, well within their rights, good step\"\nAn accurate portrayal of exceptionalism",
">\n\nPeople have a hard time applying the same logic to things they like.",
">\n\nCool, there is certainly zero propaganda coming out Ukraine, for sure.",
">\n\nHa!",
">\n\nThat sounds like a healthy and not at all a government propaganda machine.",
">\n\nIt’s their country, let ‘em do as they choose. I can understand it during wartime, but in peacetime it sounds like one of those slippery slopes….",
">\n\nConsidering that before the war started everyone was talking about how corrupt the Ukraine government was I'd expect this to be abused for the duration of the war and after.",
">\n\nWestern media can be just as bad at spouting Russian propaganda. It seems like the editors have no ability to disseminate when I see headlines on APNews/Reuters weekly about how \"Putin is ready to negotiate but Ukraine refuses\".",
">\n\nI mean, this Business Insider article is a pretty fantastic case in point:\nare there reasonable concerns about this law? Yup.\nAre there extremely good reasons to pass it regardless, in a state of war against an adversary which thrives off propaganda? Also yes.\nWill Business Insider try and \"both sides\" this to get the \"BWUH 1984\" crowd arguing about their article? Final yes.",
">\n\nWell, Ukraine has never been the democratic heaven that the west is portraying it as in order to feed the propaganda. It's the most corrupt country in Europe and political opposition prior to the invasion was also suppressed.\nOne of Elensky's opposition leaders was in house arrest, although I can't remember his name. I think he escaped after the war started.",
">\n\nFreedom Fighter bans Dissent",
">\n\nThis is never good",
">\n\nYou either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.\n… Or maybe it’s to block Russian propaganda; idk",
">\n\nGovernment controlled media… if anyone thinks this is a good idea then you’re wrong",
">\n\nWhen has censorship ever been on the right side of history?",
">\n\nLincoln infamously censored free speech and the press during the American civil war, and often arrested (without due process!) anyone publishing media opposing the draft or expressing sympathy for the south",
">\n\n\"don't listen to that propaganda, listen to this propaganda\"",
">\n\nAnd so it begins.",
">\n\nI wonder how many pro-working class news outlets will suddenly be removed because they’re critical of Ukraine’s bourgeois government.",
">\n\nThe west is gonna act shocked when this war is over and it turns out Ukraine is still a corrupt place, but saying that makes me pro Russian or some shit",
">\n\nWhat irks me is them saying that being in the EU will supposedly make things better…",
">\n\nAs a country at war, censorship is not surprising. What will be telling is how they behave once the war is over.",
">\n\nSomething a totally not fascist would do, right?",
">\n\nwhen news reporting is killing your soldiers",
">\n\nHe already banned opposing political parties. What’s next?",
">\n\nThey also banned Russian and Rusyn languages schools. Its an ethnostate, simple as.",
">\n\nWar tends to be bad for freedom of speech. The Ukrainian people have a right to hear what pro-Russian media is saying.",
">\n\nAnd yet people claim that this guy is the savior of democracy? Aahahahahah, m'kay.",
">\n\nHonestly this isn't news. Countries are well known for curtailing news reporting during wartime. The US and UK did it during WW2. You don't want news media reporting the location of your troops or movements. \nThe test to democracy isn't what's passed during wartime, it's what's rescinded when war is over. When Ukraine eventually wins, the question will be how well do they transition to functioning, minimally corrupt transparent democracy. Will Zelensky and his successors freely give up power? Will the people elect fascist white nationalists who contributed to the war effort? The future remains to be seen. Well intentions can easily be lead astray.",
">\n\n“Could” is probably doing a lot of work here.",
">\n\nThe problem with that is that it shouldn’t. Laws need to be scoped heavily, or they will be rife with abuse.",
">\n\nSo censorship is suddenly ok because someone that’s not Russia did it.",
">\n\nThe headline sounds terrible. However reading helps add sense to it. \nBut I can't help to wonder whether blocking news websites due to \"weaponized media\" is a good thing or bad thing. I feel there's a gray line here that could be getting crossed and one has to question \"Is this propaganda that's being blocked, or is this our country censoring media brainwashing us in an attempt to strengthen their resolve?\" \nI'm all for Ukraine in this war, but in terms of a country censoring media, it's well.... a sticky subject. What action is the correct action when your enemies are using it as a weapon to confuse the public opinion?",
">\n\nI have no problem with this, RT is blocked in my country and Europe",
">\n\nafaik this is just ukraine setting up a media regulator along EU directives - all countries must have these mechanisms.",
">\n\nEU directives aren’t regulated by the government. Ukraine’s will be",
">\n\nDuring war time, I think that's fine. It's important to minimize Russian propaganda and to make sure no military information gets leaked.",
">\n\nIf the independent regulator can't be trusted during war time, why can it be trusted during peace time?",
">\n\nTo be very clear, this is many steps too far for peacetime and this bill isn't limited to wartime.\nI'm not Ukrainian and not an expert on the bill by any means but placing this under the same umbrella as the ~~federal~~ national government is dangerous and exposes the country to big problems down the road.\nI could defend it if the bill explicitly was for wartime. And many bills have expiration dates. But this is not good.",
">\n\nBut I thought he was about democracy?",
">\n\nGood if it's for the russian news websites only!\nNow, how about Ukraine's president fix that law forbidding romanian language to be taught to the romanian minority in Ukraine?\nAr we good neighbors respecting each other or are we not?",
">\n\nFinally someone who understands what is going on here.",
">\n\nGenius",
">\n\nAuto correct typo in my first post! Fixed.\nNot at all supporting suppression of dissent, but there has to be some way to block intentionally slander and misinformation, the hawking of all out lies through garbage like Alex Jones from bending the public discourse, and causing serious social harm. \nParading conspiracy theories or promoting propaganda created by the FSB to destabilize democracy isn't journalism, and isn't news. Legit journalism runs on facts and as such self corrects as better information comes to light. Propaganda either points to a new distraction or digs deeper into a lie, as do its adherents.",
">\n\nNo idea what people are complaining about. Ukraine had pro-Russian politicians in the parliament, russian fake news and pro-russian KGB \"church\" freely acting in Ukraine for years right before the invasion. The real question is why the didn't shut down them long before.",
">\n\nThe Smith act of 1940 comes to mind.\nUkraine is under threat of genocide. Let's see what happens after they win.",
">\n\nWe need to close/block russian or pro-russian websites.",
">\n\nOh no!",
">\n\nI just know its going to be a dark day if news reporters/programs are no longer allowed to make up news and are required to tell the entire story about something. \nSadly if you take away the freedom to blabber from a roof top, you also take away freedom of press",
">\n\nWhy not, news websites are a weapon and can be used by either side.",
">\n\nHmmmm. Interesting",
">\n\nThe beginning of the end",
">\n\nSuch a fascist",
">\n\nChurches next?",
">\n\nAlready",
">\n\nIt's very reasonable to find this offputting, but a ton of westerners are showing their chauvinism in this thread. Acting like any/every NATO country hasn't/wouldn't do this in times of war or great conflict is just asinine, governments pretty much everywhere will regulate whose propaganda is legal and whose isn't. Not saying it's always justified, but many westerners are acting like their shit don't stink.",
">\n\nBaltics and lot of EU countries have banned russian propoganda chanels. I agree with this. Russian propoganda is no joke and i would not recomend it for uninitiated.",
">\n\nThey didn’t ban Russian propaganda channels. Law allows government to block any news website they feel necessary. Given the track record of corruption in Ukrainian governance, this can’t be good.\nEdit: grammar",
">\n\nHaving a standard of what qualifies as news while engaged in a propaganda attack from a country several times your size if propferly monitored information through a board and independent laws could be a net positive\nI’m the USA the repeal of the fairness doctorine is often sited as a reason the news ended up with broadcasters telling people not to take a vaccine during a pandemic",
">\n\nWonder if Zelenskky will be Ukraine's ~~Dictator~~ President in 10 years time.",
">\n\nGet your popcorn while redditors try to tell you why this is a good thing and Zelensky can do no wrong",
">\n\nYikes",
">\n\nUkraine was corrupt as all hell before Russia invaded, and continue corrupt and not worthy of trust. Just because they're fighting for their sovereignty against Putin's evil ass doesn't mean they get a blank check to do whatever the fuck they want and pass it off as correct or for some greater good. This is authoritarian bullshit, nothing else.",
">\n\nIt's quite interesting to see the Zelensky fan boys doing their mental gymnastics to defend this policy. Having a government control what you can see is not good at all: it's a tactic thar has been used by most of the worst rulers in history: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.",
">\n\nI can understand why but honestly I think it’s a very slippery slope that most humans aren’t able to handle. Where’s the line at what is ok and what isn’t. A human decides that and humans are fallible.",
">\n\nThey were right to question this move. I hope the good President/Warrior isn't losing his head. This war is insane.",
">\n\nOne the one hand not too good depending on Implementation. One the other hand the legal framework to go against russian propaganda, misinformation and other Media based attenpts against ukraine.",
">\n\nThere is a lot of anti-Ukraine posts on OP’s profile, take this news with a grain of salt",
">\n\nThe UK blocked Russia Today and Sputnik from UK Satellites to stop their propoganda. It's a sensible thing to do in times of conflict.. we did the same to Nazi Germany also.",
">\n\nI think I just lost all respect for this guy",
">\n\nSecond most corrupt country in Europe (after Russia)... What else do you expect.",
">\n\nTough to balance government overreach against foreign interference.",
">\n\nThat's not good.",
">\n\nDon't pull a \"Russia\" bro. Wrong path to be taking.",
">\n\nYou do realize Russian propaganda channels are there and available to zombify people?\nI have spent so much of my personal time to report Youtube Channel24 videos and you have to show in each video where there is an explicit piece where there was a terrorist speech, it is tedious !! Also, noone seem to read an article cause the content is not like that at all",
">\n\nFor some people (especially here on reddit lmao) russian propaganda is any piece of informations you disagree with, and anyone saying it is either a bot or russian troll",
">\n\nRemember when the Russians invaded claiming there were Nazis in Ukraine?\nPepperidge Farms remembers.",
">\n\nPutin is not the good guy, but this doesn't mean Zelensky and the Ukranian government are a bunch of angels.",
">\n\nHe has cracked down on unions too.",
">\n\nDuring the civil war Lincoln has confederate sympathizing reports thrown in jail without trial. \nThis is not new",
">\n\nSomething seriously off with this man,",
">\n\nI’m sure when peace arrives, and one day Zelenskyy is replaced by a nefarious leader this law will also be remove right? Right?",
">\n\nLol watching this happen in slow motion while supposed lovers of freedom and the Ukrainian people just worship this man, who is an actor and he’s just gradually changing his role.",
">\n\nFreedom of speech? Hahaha, this is no better than Russia or China.",
">\n\nWhat a fucking dishonest headline. Shame on this publisher.",
">\n\nThis is a heck of a misleading headline, the law outlines blatant Russian propaganda sites as the issue. This is almost as bad as the reporting of them “banning orthodox religion” no they banned the orthodox Russian church, that church was using their religion as a cover to transport information back to Russia.",
">\n\nBad idea.",
">\n\nRussian propaganda is no joke and Ukraine probably needs the ability to block it. It's a shame this wasn't passed as wartime emergency legislation with an automatic repeal date though.",
">\n\nNothing to see here, just the good guys fighting against evil Russia 😅",
">\n\nAnd down the slippery slope we continue to slide.",
">\n\nHalf the problem with war now is the media giving g the game away ... there should 100% be restrictions on what the media can post during war time",
">\n\nWell, this headline is awful. First of all we already have such thing since 2015 I believe (one of popular examples is \"vk\" website), secondly - it's just EU standards. \nBtw we still don't have \"war censorship\", you can critisize government all you want.",
">\n\nImagine defending media censorship. China must be proud",
">\n\nRussia does exactly the same thing blocking websites that they consider to be spreading misinformation. And this is obviously bad.\nYet, the amount of double standards in this thread with people thinking that \"it's fine when Ukraine does it\" is absurd.\nBefore the war Ukraine was always on the top positions of most corrupt countries in Europe. This law WILL be abused.",
">\n\nRemember when he said he wanted to run his country more like a democracy…yeah, he just wants those dollars from the U.S",
">\n\nYup this is not the right way to do stuff... If you really wanna show that you are cleaning up the corruptness in your country then don't start making laws like this shit.",
">\n\nVery freedom loving and democratic",
">\n\nNothing says countering russian propaganda like censorship and more propaganda 👍",
">\n\nWatch Ukraine turn into a brutal dictatorship lead by the dancing with the stars jokey guy.",
">\n\nIts the same laws that govern the EU.",
">\n\nWell the corruption continues. “I think it’s good when we do it” Is not a good justification.",
">\n\nDictator for life",
">\n\nIt should only be valid as long as the war against Russia.",
">\n\nRussian \"new\" Websites, which actually are just propaganda machineries, should ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE be blocked.",
">\n\nUkraine has its own propaganda too.",
">\n\nName one nation in a conflict that doesn't censor and put out nationalistic/propaganda. Edited to clarify.",
">\n\nExactly man, that is why I'm saying that censoring is not the right call. Once the government censors you from reading international media, you are influenced by your own government and you know and think only what they want you to know and think. Having trust in your own government is ok but trusting it blindly is not. It makes you easily influenced by your own government,a puppet and as you said, every nation in conflict is making propaganda.",
">\n\nNo different than really any other country that has been in a total war. I just hope that's it's a temporary war measure, which I'm not sure it is.",
">\n\nTotally normal behavior",
">\n\nSounds like news sensorship to me..",
">\n\nHope rises. Discontent rises slightly.\nBeware of the poet's suicide.\nP.s. This is a game reference",
">\n\n1000% normal in war times. Many countries have done this before. It's impossible for Ukraine not to do this given how much Russia is investing into disinformation. Literally having speaker cars driving through the streets with propaganda 24/7. Broadcasting fake news into Ukraine through all mediums. If they get to a large group of people in the US imagine the amount of people they can influence when it comes to their neighbors.\nThe only way they can get Ukraine to lose the war is to break the people's will to fight and they're doing this by not only bombing schools, playgrounds, hospitals and powerplants to freeze them to death but also spreading propaganda to make the people second guess their leadership",
">\n\nCountries do this all the time. Even the US.\nStop trying to vilify Ukraine to appease that shit cabbage Putin. Russia invaded them, not the other way around.",
">\n\nI love watching people try to balance not being called out on ignoring Ukraine's pre-existing corruption and keeping the \"Ukraine = unquestionable good guys\" narrative.\nThere's nothing that says war HAS to be \"good guys vs bad guys\".",
">\n\nPeople have every right to complain about this. But remember Ukraine is fighting in the fields for their very existence.",
">\n\nZelensky understands Democracy more than people think. He's most likely changing it now because of the WAR so that not much information gets back to the enemy.. Remember when Ukraine did both big successful offensives they had a Media Blackout.",
">\n\nOnly state-approved propaganda is authorized",
">\n\nPeople are dumbasses in this thread, and have no idea how propaganda, and filtering media works. There's a reason why propaganda is dangerous, and there are reasons why it's blocked.\nNarrow minded AF.",
">\n\nIn war, certain civil liberties are curtailed. It is this way, it’s always been this way, and it will always be this way. War is not a game. It’s not good that this happens, of course, but it’s one of the many reasons war is bad.",
">\n\nThis definitely isn't suspicious at all",
">\n\nIt’s a standard phenomenon at war time.",
">\n\nOf course he did",
">\n\nWeeeird. Can’t wait to read all the comments somehow blaming this on Russia.",
">\n\nDoesn't sound very Democratic to me, Bob",
">\n\nI wish America would do the same or at least punish journalist & there agencies that promote there views if they are acting in a propagandists manor kinda like Cough 🦊 Cough 🦊",
">\n\nI get why they would want some censorship after the media leaked their military strategy, but I think it should be very limited",
">\n\nSo he is fascist?",
">\n\nyep that's what a dictator does. also take note when russian invaded, they had to scramble to deliver guns to the citizens and were ill prepared. this is what NOT having a 2nd amendment looks like. a complete clusterF",
">\n\nUh oh",
">\n\nBiden probably gave him the idea",
">\n\nHe's been silencing dissenting voices for some time now nothing new, except now he's a genuine dictator.",
">\n\nSo you mean to tell me that all this money the United States is sending to Ukraine isn’t really to save democracy? Didn’t see that coming.",
">\n\nDetractors paint this as some nefarious bid for authoritarianism when in reality it is the usual sort of issue that democratic governments face.\nIn Canada, the Canadian Television and Radio Commission (CRTC) is supposed to operate at arms length from the government but the head and Governor in Council are determined by the Prime Minister and Cabinet.\nUltimately, whether or not a body is elected by government or is “independent”, the reality is that money talks and the oligarchical media empires will manipulate either the politicians or independent boards to get their way.\nThe CRTC in Canada for instance, is seen by the public to serve the best interests of the media empires, not Canadians.",
">\n\nWhen a western democracy is fighting for its life, it’s important to keep a United front. \nUkraine has A LOT of Russian propaganda that, like we’ve seen from the American right, have pushed baseless conspiracies that only hurt and divide a country.",
">\n\nAnybody who think this is something that only applies temporarily are human golden retrievers"
] |
>
Something like this isn't that surprising or unusual. The U.S. did the same during WW2 and that wasn't even a battle on home soil. His country is probably getting blasted with a full on russian media campaign and everyone knows it. | [
"Just curious, how did the US regulate media during WWII if at all? Obviously the war department was churning out war news and propaganda, but did they censor/restrict any media from being published?",
">\n\nYes, absolutely. They formed the Office of Censorship and heavily regulated the press, especially radio. But it was almost entirely geared towards preventing information on troop movements and weather from getting out, and coded enemy messages from getting in. They didn't force stations to broadcast propaganda or ban negative stories, and most of the restrictions were followed voluntarily.\nThere was also the Office of War Information which was responsible for producing propaganda and rejected film scripts that were critical or negative regarding the war effort - but they did not restrict the press to my knowledge.",
">\n\nSuper interesting! Thanks for sharing. Yes it seems this was a bit more functional about what comes in and out of the country, not necessarily with what’s published domestically as far as swaying public opinion. Also TIL the catch phrase “loose lips sink ships” came from this agency.\nThe voluntary aspect is somewhat enlightening as to how unified the country was in the war effort. The cynic in me makes me even more curious if there was other censorship at play outside of this agency that helped create that sentiment. I feel like someone would have replied about some landmark Supreme Court case by now though if that were the case.",
">\n\nAmerican's have a curious ability to get in line when there is a clear and present danger to the nation. Someone summed it up with \"You can always count on American's to do the right thing when they have no other option.\"",
">\n\nWinston Churchill famously stated “Americans will always do the right thing, only after they have tried everything else.\"\nIs that the quote you are thinking of?",
">\n\nIt was attributed to him, but tracing things down, it was apparent not said by him and I’ve heard both versions.",
">\n\nLawmakers have touted the bill as an effort to bring Ukraine's media laws closer to European Union standards as the country makes a bid to join the 27-member bloc. They have also argued that it will help counter Russian propaganda as Russia's invasion of Ukraine nears its one-year anniversary.\nBut organizations representing journalists say the law will erode press freedoms in Ukraine. Under the law, Ukraine's media regulator could block websites that are not registered with the government as news organizations, The Kyiv Independent reported on Friday. \nThe law is at odds with freedoms given to the press in other parts of Europe, the European Federation of Journalists said in a statement on Friday, according to the Times. \nEdit: because some users argued (with justification) that my post kept specific details hidden, I added the rest of the news post. I also checked the Kyiv Independent and it checks out.",
">\n\nWhile this is true, if I'm not mistaken some EU members have still spoken out against the bill - mainly because the new regulatory body will be led/run by the federal government, whereas in the EU they're generally a separate entity from the government run by civilians\nStill a step in the right direction, but I can see where people worry",
">\n\nHow is censorship a right step in any direction?",
">\n\nIt's indeed a double edged sword. On the one hand self-proclaimed news networks might spread their political agenda or incite illegal behaviour, on the other hand it's a real shortcut to control the media. This needs to be handled very carefully and probably by a body that's not interwoven with the government.",
">\n\nThere are few good options in war, especially a total war where the very survival of a country and ethnolinguistic group is at risk. Zelenskyy is probably going a bit far, but it’s hard to really blame him.",
">\n\nDepends on what the censorship is… trying to dispel discontentment with current ruling party or suppressing enemy state misinformation.",
">\n\nI think it's safe to infer the reasoning is to filter propaganda. I don't think there is much discontent with the current ruling party. Zelensky\"s approval ratings have been through the roof. Although, it's an easy power to abuse in the wrong hands.",
">\n\nI mean, can you think of a single instance in history where censorship was a net societal benefit, rolled back when no longer necessary, and not abused over the long-term? Nothing comes to mind.\nJournalists surely also know this to be the case, hence their outspoken opposition to the measure.",
">\n\nAbraham Lincoln suspending habeas corpus in the civil war is probably the best example for Americans in here. Would it be tolerated during peacetime? hell no. Would it be tolerated when the entire country is at an inflection point like the Ukraine is in 2023 and the US in 1861. Yes.\nedit: left out Abe's last name",
">\n\nWhat's it like to be on a first-name basis with Abraham Lincoln?",
">\n\nIt does make sense to block Russian \"news\" channels but its easily open to abuse",
">\n\nThis. Sounds like the Sedition Act of 1917. Easy to pass during wartime and makes sense, but probably wouldn’t get passed during peacetime. \nIt also doesn’t help that Ukraine was like #31 on the world’s corruption index prior to the war.",
">\n\nI vaguely recall reading that prior to the war Ukraine was the second most corrupt country in Europe, behind Russia.",
">\n\nThat's pretty much why Zelensky won the elections, he ran on an anti-corruption platform and has actually done a lot to combat it",
">\n\nLike what?",
">\n\nno more oligarchs",
">\n\nYou really think he ended the oligarchy? And it will only get 100x worse after the war when western businessmen come in to “fix” the country.",
">\n\nLmao this. We should all remember that he was also named in the Panama papers for holding 20+ million overseas",
">\n\nWhats so weird about successful actor having 20million to their name?",
">\n\nThey’ve been blocking the BBC on and off for years.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest lessons the world will learn from this conflict is that while Ukraine is/are the good guys… they are far, far behind a system that is akin to the western world.\nmy father’s grandfather was from Ukraine.\nAs he likes to say, Ukraine had 30 years to get their shit together so that when this day (02/24/22, Russia’s invasion which was always an inevitability if you know Ukraine, Ukraine’s history and geopolitics) arrived they’d be more than just militarily prepared.\nThey would be a part of NATO.. but Ukraine wanted to dip its toes in both democracy and wide-scale corruption.",
">\n\nFrom what I understand, the oligarchs and who grabbed up all the candy when the USSR piñata ruptured have been a big part of the problem. They have lost a lot of power and wealth, and some experts believe that this could create a political space for serious reform. I sure hope so!",
">\n\nExactly not to mention many oligarchs actually own news outlets and even television stations. I get what they’re trying to do given the war, but they have to be careful with the execution of it because it’s a step away from authoritarian control over news and media. News and media should be free but within limits too. Ex. Carlson tucker on Fox News in the US isn’t exactly unbiased. If there was a Ukrainian counterpart, they’d try to shut it down.",
">\n\nA nation in war time does not have the luxury of entertaining 100% freedom of information, especially considering the constant misinformation campaigns waged by Russia on top of its land war.",
">\n\nShutting on and off news websites? Banning political parties? BAWWW TYRANNY.\n\nPeople should not be naive, Ukraine is at war, the survival of their nation is at stake.",
">\n\nPrecisely, and psyops against Ukraine are extremely active.\nI hope they can reach Western values one day, but this is war against a much bigger Country that does not play fair. \nLet's let Ukraine win this war first and give them some time to rebuild before their culture becomes more Western.",
">\n\nHere in Adelaide, Australia, we did that. In the days before websites so he wasn't blocked, but a certain editor knew he wasn't welcome and had to leave town. He was an awful liar and very divisive. Inherited a newspaper from his dad called 'The News'.\nAfter he left town he started a company named after the Adelaide paper, NewsCorp. Rupert Murdoch was the name he went by (though his first name is really Keith, not Rupert). Wonder whatever happened to him?",
">\n\nHe got mad and decided to ruin the world.",
">\n\n\"I think it's good when we do it\" is a dangerous justification",
">\n\nYes, it is very similar to how the freedom of press declined in Russia. All medias were required to be registered by some governmental department in order to \"control the flow of information from abroad\". In no time it became the instrument of banning unwanted media.\nThough I admit banning Russian state media is for the better. Could they be banned in Russia itself, too?",
">\n\nThe thing is who defines that the media is pro-Russian. While it stays for the Ukrainian government to define, Ukrainian freedom of speech basically is being destroyed.",
">\n\nNot really enough information in the article to make an informed opinion on this.\n \nDecision was made by parliament, Zelenskyy's role in this is to sign the law, much like other world leaders don't necessarily agree with everything they have to sign.\nThe article mentions this is to allow them to ban websites not listed as media, which to me means the ability to ban any website if it isn't a registered media website. So, specifically to not allow them to block news websites so long as they are registered.\nAlso mentions this was to try and bring them more in line with EU countries, while at the same time saying it does the opposite.\n \nDo we have a link to the actual text of the new law?",
">\n\nSlippery slope",
">\n\nMost of the west have already blocked RT for their disinformation.",
">\n\nPrivate companies blocking is one thing, but governments is very different.\nA lot of laws created with \"good intentions\" are very often used for bad things, especially in countries with long history of corruption like Ukraine.",
">\n\nFrance is blocking RT",
">\n\nThese things happen during war, in every country.\nThe real test is seeing what laws will be repealed once this is all over imo.",
">\n\n\nThe real test is seeing what laws will be repealed once this is all over\n\nNone of them will be. Governments never voluntarily surrender any measure of control over the people. That's why the US is still officially in a state of national emergency 22 years after 9/11: so that the government elites can keep using their \"temporary\" emergency powers.",
">\n\nThe exact opposite has been happening in a lot of cases. The war has been used as an excuse to carry out a lot of deregulation and liberalization",
">\n\nLike when they banned left wing opposition parties?",
">\n\nArticle says websites not registered as media could be blocked. Kind of the opposite of what the headline says...",
">\n\nGovernments never relinquish power once they have it. Look at how the patriot act went from protecting our country to taking our rights. This is not a slippery slope. This is what corruption looks like. I really want Ukraine to succeed but decisions like this gives me trepidation.",
">\n\nRussia China bans websites \"fascists, ugly despots, violating human rights\" \nsomeone else does it \"understandable, well within their rights, good step\"\nAn accurate portrayal of exceptionalism",
">\n\nPeople have a hard time applying the same logic to things they like.",
">\n\nCool, there is certainly zero propaganda coming out Ukraine, for sure.",
">\n\nHa!",
">\n\nThat sounds like a healthy and not at all a government propaganda machine.",
">\n\nIt’s their country, let ‘em do as they choose. I can understand it during wartime, but in peacetime it sounds like one of those slippery slopes….",
">\n\nConsidering that before the war started everyone was talking about how corrupt the Ukraine government was I'd expect this to be abused for the duration of the war and after.",
">\n\nWestern media can be just as bad at spouting Russian propaganda. It seems like the editors have no ability to disseminate when I see headlines on APNews/Reuters weekly about how \"Putin is ready to negotiate but Ukraine refuses\".",
">\n\nI mean, this Business Insider article is a pretty fantastic case in point:\nare there reasonable concerns about this law? Yup.\nAre there extremely good reasons to pass it regardless, in a state of war against an adversary which thrives off propaganda? Also yes.\nWill Business Insider try and \"both sides\" this to get the \"BWUH 1984\" crowd arguing about their article? Final yes.",
">\n\nWell, Ukraine has never been the democratic heaven that the west is portraying it as in order to feed the propaganda. It's the most corrupt country in Europe and political opposition prior to the invasion was also suppressed.\nOne of Elensky's opposition leaders was in house arrest, although I can't remember his name. I think he escaped after the war started.",
">\n\nFreedom Fighter bans Dissent",
">\n\nThis is never good",
">\n\nYou either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.\n… Or maybe it’s to block Russian propaganda; idk",
">\n\nGovernment controlled media… if anyone thinks this is a good idea then you’re wrong",
">\n\nWhen has censorship ever been on the right side of history?",
">\n\nLincoln infamously censored free speech and the press during the American civil war, and often arrested (without due process!) anyone publishing media opposing the draft or expressing sympathy for the south",
">\n\n\"don't listen to that propaganda, listen to this propaganda\"",
">\n\nAnd so it begins.",
">\n\nI wonder how many pro-working class news outlets will suddenly be removed because they’re critical of Ukraine’s bourgeois government.",
">\n\nThe west is gonna act shocked when this war is over and it turns out Ukraine is still a corrupt place, but saying that makes me pro Russian or some shit",
">\n\nWhat irks me is them saying that being in the EU will supposedly make things better…",
">\n\nAs a country at war, censorship is not surprising. What will be telling is how they behave once the war is over.",
">\n\nSomething a totally not fascist would do, right?",
">\n\nwhen news reporting is killing your soldiers",
">\n\nHe already banned opposing political parties. What’s next?",
">\n\nThey also banned Russian and Rusyn languages schools. Its an ethnostate, simple as.",
">\n\nWar tends to be bad for freedom of speech. The Ukrainian people have a right to hear what pro-Russian media is saying.",
">\n\nAnd yet people claim that this guy is the savior of democracy? Aahahahahah, m'kay.",
">\n\nHonestly this isn't news. Countries are well known for curtailing news reporting during wartime. The US and UK did it during WW2. You don't want news media reporting the location of your troops or movements. \nThe test to democracy isn't what's passed during wartime, it's what's rescinded when war is over. When Ukraine eventually wins, the question will be how well do they transition to functioning, minimally corrupt transparent democracy. Will Zelensky and his successors freely give up power? Will the people elect fascist white nationalists who contributed to the war effort? The future remains to be seen. Well intentions can easily be lead astray.",
">\n\n“Could” is probably doing a lot of work here.",
">\n\nThe problem with that is that it shouldn’t. Laws need to be scoped heavily, or they will be rife with abuse.",
">\n\nSo censorship is suddenly ok because someone that’s not Russia did it.",
">\n\nThe headline sounds terrible. However reading helps add sense to it. \nBut I can't help to wonder whether blocking news websites due to \"weaponized media\" is a good thing or bad thing. I feel there's a gray line here that could be getting crossed and one has to question \"Is this propaganda that's being blocked, or is this our country censoring media brainwashing us in an attempt to strengthen their resolve?\" \nI'm all for Ukraine in this war, but in terms of a country censoring media, it's well.... a sticky subject. What action is the correct action when your enemies are using it as a weapon to confuse the public opinion?",
">\n\nI have no problem with this, RT is blocked in my country and Europe",
">\n\nafaik this is just ukraine setting up a media regulator along EU directives - all countries must have these mechanisms.",
">\n\nEU directives aren’t regulated by the government. Ukraine’s will be",
">\n\nDuring war time, I think that's fine. It's important to minimize Russian propaganda and to make sure no military information gets leaked.",
">\n\nIf the independent regulator can't be trusted during war time, why can it be trusted during peace time?",
">\n\nTo be very clear, this is many steps too far for peacetime and this bill isn't limited to wartime.\nI'm not Ukrainian and not an expert on the bill by any means but placing this under the same umbrella as the ~~federal~~ national government is dangerous and exposes the country to big problems down the road.\nI could defend it if the bill explicitly was for wartime. And many bills have expiration dates. But this is not good.",
">\n\nBut I thought he was about democracy?",
">\n\nGood if it's for the russian news websites only!\nNow, how about Ukraine's president fix that law forbidding romanian language to be taught to the romanian minority in Ukraine?\nAr we good neighbors respecting each other or are we not?",
">\n\nFinally someone who understands what is going on here.",
">\n\nGenius",
">\n\nAuto correct typo in my first post! Fixed.\nNot at all supporting suppression of dissent, but there has to be some way to block intentionally slander and misinformation, the hawking of all out lies through garbage like Alex Jones from bending the public discourse, and causing serious social harm. \nParading conspiracy theories or promoting propaganda created by the FSB to destabilize democracy isn't journalism, and isn't news. Legit journalism runs on facts and as such self corrects as better information comes to light. Propaganda either points to a new distraction or digs deeper into a lie, as do its adherents.",
">\n\nNo idea what people are complaining about. Ukraine had pro-Russian politicians in the parliament, russian fake news and pro-russian KGB \"church\" freely acting in Ukraine for years right before the invasion. The real question is why the didn't shut down them long before.",
">\n\nThe Smith act of 1940 comes to mind.\nUkraine is under threat of genocide. Let's see what happens after they win.",
">\n\nWe need to close/block russian or pro-russian websites.",
">\n\nOh no!",
">\n\nI just know its going to be a dark day if news reporters/programs are no longer allowed to make up news and are required to tell the entire story about something. \nSadly if you take away the freedom to blabber from a roof top, you also take away freedom of press",
">\n\nWhy not, news websites are a weapon and can be used by either side.",
">\n\nHmmmm. Interesting",
">\n\nThe beginning of the end",
">\n\nSuch a fascist",
">\n\nChurches next?",
">\n\nAlready",
">\n\nIt's very reasonable to find this offputting, but a ton of westerners are showing their chauvinism in this thread. Acting like any/every NATO country hasn't/wouldn't do this in times of war or great conflict is just asinine, governments pretty much everywhere will regulate whose propaganda is legal and whose isn't. Not saying it's always justified, but many westerners are acting like their shit don't stink.",
">\n\nBaltics and lot of EU countries have banned russian propoganda chanels. I agree with this. Russian propoganda is no joke and i would not recomend it for uninitiated.",
">\n\nThey didn’t ban Russian propaganda channels. Law allows government to block any news website they feel necessary. Given the track record of corruption in Ukrainian governance, this can’t be good.\nEdit: grammar",
">\n\nHaving a standard of what qualifies as news while engaged in a propaganda attack from a country several times your size if propferly monitored information through a board and independent laws could be a net positive\nI’m the USA the repeal of the fairness doctorine is often sited as a reason the news ended up with broadcasters telling people not to take a vaccine during a pandemic",
">\n\nWonder if Zelenskky will be Ukraine's ~~Dictator~~ President in 10 years time.",
">\n\nGet your popcorn while redditors try to tell you why this is a good thing and Zelensky can do no wrong",
">\n\nYikes",
">\n\nUkraine was corrupt as all hell before Russia invaded, and continue corrupt and not worthy of trust. Just because they're fighting for their sovereignty against Putin's evil ass doesn't mean they get a blank check to do whatever the fuck they want and pass it off as correct or for some greater good. This is authoritarian bullshit, nothing else.",
">\n\nIt's quite interesting to see the Zelensky fan boys doing their mental gymnastics to defend this policy. Having a government control what you can see is not good at all: it's a tactic thar has been used by most of the worst rulers in history: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.",
">\n\nI can understand why but honestly I think it’s a very slippery slope that most humans aren’t able to handle. Where’s the line at what is ok and what isn’t. A human decides that and humans are fallible.",
">\n\nThey were right to question this move. I hope the good President/Warrior isn't losing his head. This war is insane.",
">\n\nOne the one hand not too good depending on Implementation. One the other hand the legal framework to go against russian propaganda, misinformation and other Media based attenpts against ukraine.",
">\n\nThere is a lot of anti-Ukraine posts on OP’s profile, take this news with a grain of salt",
">\n\nThe UK blocked Russia Today and Sputnik from UK Satellites to stop their propoganda. It's a sensible thing to do in times of conflict.. we did the same to Nazi Germany also.",
">\n\nI think I just lost all respect for this guy",
">\n\nSecond most corrupt country in Europe (after Russia)... What else do you expect.",
">\n\nTough to balance government overreach against foreign interference.",
">\n\nThat's not good.",
">\n\nDon't pull a \"Russia\" bro. Wrong path to be taking.",
">\n\nYou do realize Russian propaganda channels are there and available to zombify people?\nI have spent so much of my personal time to report Youtube Channel24 videos and you have to show in each video where there is an explicit piece where there was a terrorist speech, it is tedious !! Also, noone seem to read an article cause the content is not like that at all",
">\n\nFor some people (especially here on reddit lmao) russian propaganda is any piece of informations you disagree with, and anyone saying it is either a bot or russian troll",
">\n\nRemember when the Russians invaded claiming there were Nazis in Ukraine?\nPepperidge Farms remembers.",
">\n\nPutin is not the good guy, but this doesn't mean Zelensky and the Ukranian government are a bunch of angels.",
">\n\nHe has cracked down on unions too.",
">\n\nDuring the civil war Lincoln has confederate sympathizing reports thrown in jail without trial. \nThis is not new",
">\n\nSomething seriously off with this man,",
">\n\nI’m sure when peace arrives, and one day Zelenskyy is replaced by a nefarious leader this law will also be remove right? Right?",
">\n\nLol watching this happen in slow motion while supposed lovers of freedom and the Ukrainian people just worship this man, who is an actor and he’s just gradually changing his role.",
">\n\nFreedom of speech? Hahaha, this is no better than Russia or China.",
">\n\nWhat a fucking dishonest headline. Shame on this publisher.",
">\n\nThis is a heck of a misleading headline, the law outlines blatant Russian propaganda sites as the issue. This is almost as bad as the reporting of them “banning orthodox religion” no they banned the orthodox Russian church, that church was using their religion as a cover to transport information back to Russia.",
">\n\nBad idea.",
">\n\nRussian propaganda is no joke and Ukraine probably needs the ability to block it. It's a shame this wasn't passed as wartime emergency legislation with an automatic repeal date though.",
">\n\nNothing to see here, just the good guys fighting against evil Russia 😅",
">\n\nAnd down the slippery slope we continue to slide.",
">\n\nHalf the problem with war now is the media giving g the game away ... there should 100% be restrictions on what the media can post during war time",
">\n\nWell, this headline is awful. First of all we already have such thing since 2015 I believe (one of popular examples is \"vk\" website), secondly - it's just EU standards. \nBtw we still don't have \"war censorship\", you can critisize government all you want.",
">\n\nImagine defending media censorship. China must be proud",
">\n\nRussia does exactly the same thing blocking websites that they consider to be spreading misinformation. And this is obviously bad.\nYet, the amount of double standards in this thread with people thinking that \"it's fine when Ukraine does it\" is absurd.\nBefore the war Ukraine was always on the top positions of most corrupt countries in Europe. This law WILL be abused.",
">\n\nRemember when he said he wanted to run his country more like a democracy…yeah, he just wants those dollars from the U.S",
">\n\nYup this is not the right way to do stuff... If you really wanna show that you are cleaning up the corruptness in your country then don't start making laws like this shit.",
">\n\nVery freedom loving and democratic",
">\n\nNothing says countering russian propaganda like censorship and more propaganda 👍",
">\n\nWatch Ukraine turn into a brutal dictatorship lead by the dancing with the stars jokey guy.",
">\n\nIts the same laws that govern the EU.",
">\n\nWell the corruption continues. “I think it’s good when we do it” Is not a good justification.",
">\n\nDictator for life",
">\n\nIt should only be valid as long as the war against Russia.",
">\n\nRussian \"new\" Websites, which actually are just propaganda machineries, should ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE be blocked.",
">\n\nUkraine has its own propaganda too.",
">\n\nName one nation in a conflict that doesn't censor and put out nationalistic/propaganda. Edited to clarify.",
">\n\nExactly man, that is why I'm saying that censoring is not the right call. Once the government censors you from reading international media, you are influenced by your own government and you know and think only what they want you to know and think. Having trust in your own government is ok but trusting it blindly is not. It makes you easily influenced by your own government,a puppet and as you said, every nation in conflict is making propaganda.",
">\n\nNo different than really any other country that has been in a total war. I just hope that's it's a temporary war measure, which I'm not sure it is.",
">\n\nTotally normal behavior",
">\n\nSounds like news sensorship to me..",
">\n\nHope rises. Discontent rises slightly.\nBeware of the poet's suicide.\nP.s. This is a game reference",
">\n\n1000% normal in war times. Many countries have done this before. It's impossible for Ukraine not to do this given how much Russia is investing into disinformation. Literally having speaker cars driving through the streets with propaganda 24/7. Broadcasting fake news into Ukraine through all mediums. If they get to a large group of people in the US imagine the amount of people they can influence when it comes to their neighbors.\nThe only way they can get Ukraine to lose the war is to break the people's will to fight and they're doing this by not only bombing schools, playgrounds, hospitals and powerplants to freeze them to death but also spreading propaganda to make the people second guess their leadership",
">\n\nCountries do this all the time. Even the US.\nStop trying to vilify Ukraine to appease that shit cabbage Putin. Russia invaded them, not the other way around.",
">\n\nI love watching people try to balance not being called out on ignoring Ukraine's pre-existing corruption and keeping the \"Ukraine = unquestionable good guys\" narrative.\nThere's nothing that says war HAS to be \"good guys vs bad guys\".",
">\n\nPeople have every right to complain about this. But remember Ukraine is fighting in the fields for their very existence.",
">\n\nZelensky understands Democracy more than people think. He's most likely changing it now because of the WAR so that not much information gets back to the enemy.. Remember when Ukraine did both big successful offensives they had a Media Blackout.",
">\n\nOnly state-approved propaganda is authorized",
">\n\nPeople are dumbasses in this thread, and have no idea how propaganda, and filtering media works. There's a reason why propaganda is dangerous, and there are reasons why it's blocked.\nNarrow minded AF.",
">\n\nIn war, certain civil liberties are curtailed. It is this way, it’s always been this way, and it will always be this way. War is not a game. It’s not good that this happens, of course, but it’s one of the many reasons war is bad.",
">\n\nThis definitely isn't suspicious at all",
">\n\nIt’s a standard phenomenon at war time.",
">\n\nOf course he did",
">\n\nWeeeird. Can’t wait to read all the comments somehow blaming this on Russia.",
">\n\nDoesn't sound very Democratic to me, Bob",
">\n\nI wish America would do the same or at least punish journalist & there agencies that promote there views if they are acting in a propagandists manor kinda like Cough 🦊 Cough 🦊",
">\n\nI get why they would want some censorship after the media leaked their military strategy, but I think it should be very limited",
">\n\nSo he is fascist?",
">\n\nyep that's what a dictator does. also take note when russian invaded, they had to scramble to deliver guns to the citizens and were ill prepared. this is what NOT having a 2nd amendment looks like. a complete clusterF",
">\n\nUh oh",
">\n\nBiden probably gave him the idea",
">\n\nHe's been silencing dissenting voices for some time now nothing new, except now he's a genuine dictator.",
">\n\nSo you mean to tell me that all this money the United States is sending to Ukraine isn’t really to save democracy? Didn’t see that coming.",
">\n\nDetractors paint this as some nefarious bid for authoritarianism when in reality it is the usual sort of issue that democratic governments face.\nIn Canada, the Canadian Television and Radio Commission (CRTC) is supposed to operate at arms length from the government but the head and Governor in Council are determined by the Prime Minister and Cabinet.\nUltimately, whether or not a body is elected by government or is “independent”, the reality is that money talks and the oligarchical media empires will manipulate either the politicians or independent boards to get their way.\nThe CRTC in Canada for instance, is seen by the public to serve the best interests of the media empires, not Canadians.",
">\n\nWhen a western democracy is fighting for its life, it’s important to keep a United front. \nUkraine has A LOT of Russian propaganda that, like we’ve seen from the American right, have pushed baseless conspiracies that only hurt and divide a country.",
">\n\nAnybody who think this is something that only applies temporarily are human golden retrievers",
">\n\nYup just like Canada’s PM Trudeau."
] |
>
Russian disinformation news is a serious issue. Even my Russian Ukrainian relatives living in the US like Putin and agree with his wars. | [
"Just curious, how did the US regulate media during WWII if at all? Obviously the war department was churning out war news and propaganda, but did they censor/restrict any media from being published?",
">\n\nYes, absolutely. They formed the Office of Censorship and heavily regulated the press, especially radio. But it was almost entirely geared towards preventing information on troop movements and weather from getting out, and coded enemy messages from getting in. They didn't force stations to broadcast propaganda or ban negative stories, and most of the restrictions were followed voluntarily.\nThere was also the Office of War Information which was responsible for producing propaganda and rejected film scripts that were critical or negative regarding the war effort - but they did not restrict the press to my knowledge.",
">\n\nSuper interesting! Thanks for sharing. Yes it seems this was a bit more functional about what comes in and out of the country, not necessarily with what’s published domestically as far as swaying public opinion. Also TIL the catch phrase “loose lips sink ships” came from this agency.\nThe voluntary aspect is somewhat enlightening as to how unified the country was in the war effort. The cynic in me makes me even more curious if there was other censorship at play outside of this agency that helped create that sentiment. I feel like someone would have replied about some landmark Supreme Court case by now though if that were the case.",
">\n\nAmerican's have a curious ability to get in line when there is a clear and present danger to the nation. Someone summed it up with \"You can always count on American's to do the right thing when they have no other option.\"",
">\n\nWinston Churchill famously stated “Americans will always do the right thing, only after they have tried everything else.\"\nIs that the quote you are thinking of?",
">\n\nIt was attributed to him, but tracing things down, it was apparent not said by him and I’ve heard both versions.",
">\n\nLawmakers have touted the bill as an effort to bring Ukraine's media laws closer to European Union standards as the country makes a bid to join the 27-member bloc. They have also argued that it will help counter Russian propaganda as Russia's invasion of Ukraine nears its one-year anniversary.\nBut organizations representing journalists say the law will erode press freedoms in Ukraine. Under the law, Ukraine's media regulator could block websites that are not registered with the government as news organizations, The Kyiv Independent reported on Friday. \nThe law is at odds with freedoms given to the press in other parts of Europe, the European Federation of Journalists said in a statement on Friday, according to the Times. \nEdit: because some users argued (with justification) that my post kept specific details hidden, I added the rest of the news post. I also checked the Kyiv Independent and it checks out.",
">\n\nWhile this is true, if I'm not mistaken some EU members have still spoken out against the bill - mainly because the new regulatory body will be led/run by the federal government, whereas in the EU they're generally a separate entity from the government run by civilians\nStill a step in the right direction, but I can see where people worry",
">\n\nHow is censorship a right step in any direction?",
">\n\nIt's indeed a double edged sword. On the one hand self-proclaimed news networks might spread their political agenda or incite illegal behaviour, on the other hand it's a real shortcut to control the media. This needs to be handled very carefully and probably by a body that's not interwoven with the government.",
">\n\nThere are few good options in war, especially a total war where the very survival of a country and ethnolinguistic group is at risk. Zelenskyy is probably going a bit far, but it’s hard to really blame him.",
">\n\nDepends on what the censorship is… trying to dispel discontentment with current ruling party or suppressing enemy state misinformation.",
">\n\nI think it's safe to infer the reasoning is to filter propaganda. I don't think there is much discontent with the current ruling party. Zelensky\"s approval ratings have been through the roof. Although, it's an easy power to abuse in the wrong hands.",
">\n\nI mean, can you think of a single instance in history where censorship was a net societal benefit, rolled back when no longer necessary, and not abused over the long-term? Nothing comes to mind.\nJournalists surely also know this to be the case, hence their outspoken opposition to the measure.",
">\n\nAbraham Lincoln suspending habeas corpus in the civil war is probably the best example for Americans in here. Would it be tolerated during peacetime? hell no. Would it be tolerated when the entire country is at an inflection point like the Ukraine is in 2023 and the US in 1861. Yes.\nedit: left out Abe's last name",
">\n\nWhat's it like to be on a first-name basis with Abraham Lincoln?",
">\n\nIt does make sense to block Russian \"news\" channels but its easily open to abuse",
">\n\nThis. Sounds like the Sedition Act of 1917. Easy to pass during wartime and makes sense, but probably wouldn’t get passed during peacetime. \nIt also doesn’t help that Ukraine was like #31 on the world’s corruption index prior to the war.",
">\n\nI vaguely recall reading that prior to the war Ukraine was the second most corrupt country in Europe, behind Russia.",
">\n\nThat's pretty much why Zelensky won the elections, he ran on an anti-corruption platform and has actually done a lot to combat it",
">\n\nLike what?",
">\n\nno more oligarchs",
">\n\nYou really think he ended the oligarchy? And it will only get 100x worse after the war when western businessmen come in to “fix” the country.",
">\n\nLmao this. We should all remember that he was also named in the Panama papers for holding 20+ million overseas",
">\n\nWhats so weird about successful actor having 20million to their name?",
">\n\nThey’ve been blocking the BBC on and off for years.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest lessons the world will learn from this conflict is that while Ukraine is/are the good guys… they are far, far behind a system that is akin to the western world.\nmy father’s grandfather was from Ukraine.\nAs he likes to say, Ukraine had 30 years to get their shit together so that when this day (02/24/22, Russia’s invasion which was always an inevitability if you know Ukraine, Ukraine’s history and geopolitics) arrived they’d be more than just militarily prepared.\nThey would be a part of NATO.. but Ukraine wanted to dip its toes in both democracy and wide-scale corruption.",
">\n\nFrom what I understand, the oligarchs and who grabbed up all the candy when the USSR piñata ruptured have been a big part of the problem. They have lost a lot of power and wealth, and some experts believe that this could create a political space for serious reform. I sure hope so!",
">\n\nExactly not to mention many oligarchs actually own news outlets and even television stations. I get what they’re trying to do given the war, but they have to be careful with the execution of it because it’s a step away from authoritarian control over news and media. News and media should be free but within limits too. Ex. Carlson tucker on Fox News in the US isn’t exactly unbiased. If there was a Ukrainian counterpart, they’d try to shut it down.",
">\n\nA nation in war time does not have the luxury of entertaining 100% freedom of information, especially considering the constant misinformation campaigns waged by Russia on top of its land war.",
">\n\nShutting on and off news websites? Banning political parties? BAWWW TYRANNY.\n\nPeople should not be naive, Ukraine is at war, the survival of their nation is at stake.",
">\n\nPrecisely, and psyops against Ukraine are extremely active.\nI hope they can reach Western values one day, but this is war against a much bigger Country that does not play fair. \nLet's let Ukraine win this war first and give them some time to rebuild before their culture becomes more Western.",
">\n\nHere in Adelaide, Australia, we did that. In the days before websites so he wasn't blocked, but a certain editor knew he wasn't welcome and had to leave town. He was an awful liar and very divisive. Inherited a newspaper from his dad called 'The News'.\nAfter he left town he started a company named after the Adelaide paper, NewsCorp. Rupert Murdoch was the name he went by (though his first name is really Keith, not Rupert). Wonder whatever happened to him?",
">\n\nHe got mad and decided to ruin the world.",
">\n\n\"I think it's good when we do it\" is a dangerous justification",
">\n\nYes, it is very similar to how the freedom of press declined in Russia. All medias were required to be registered by some governmental department in order to \"control the flow of information from abroad\". In no time it became the instrument of banning unwanted media.\nThough I admit banning Russian state media is for the better. Could they be banned in Russia itself, too?",
">\n\nThe thing is who defines that the media is pro-Russian. While it stays for the Ukrainian government to define, Ukrainian freedom of speech basically is being destroyed.",
">\n\nNot really enough information in the article to make an informed opinion on this.\n \nDecision was made by parliament, Zelenskyy's role in this is to sign the law, much like other world leaders don't necessarily agree with everything they have to sign.\nThe article mentions this is to allow them to ban websites not listed as media, which to me means the ability to ban any website if it isn't a registered media website. So, specifically to not allow them to block news websites so long as they are registered.\nAlso mentions this was to try and bring them more in line with EU countries, while at the same time saying it does the opposite.\n \nDo we have a link to the actual text of the new law?",
">\n\nSlippery slope",
">\n\nMost of the west have already blocked RT for their disinformation.",
">\n\nPrivate companies blocking is one thing, but governments is very different.\nA lot of laws created with \"good intentions\" are very often used for bad things, especially in countries with long history of corruption like Ukraine.",
">\n\nFrance is blocking RT",
">\n\nThese things happen during war, in every country.\nThe real test is seeing what laws will be repealed once this is all over imo.",
">\n\n\nThe real test is seeing what laws will be repealed once this is all over\n\nNone of them will be. Governments never voluntarily surrender any measure of control over the people. That's why the US is still officially in a state of national emergency 22 years after 9/11: so that the government elites can keep using their \"temporary\" emergency powers.",
">\n\nThe exact opposite has been happening in a lot of cases. The war has been used as an excuse to carry out a lot of deregulation and liberalization",
">\n\nLike when they banned left wing opposition parties?",
">\n\nArticle says websites not registered as media could be blocked. Kind of the opposite of what the headline says...",
">\n\nGovernments never relinquish power once they have it. Look at how the patriot act went from protecting our country to taking our rights. This is not a slippery slope. This is what corruption looks like. I really want Ukraine to succeed but decisions like this gives me trepidation.",
">\n\nRussia China bans websites \"fascists, ugly despots, violating human rights\" \nsomeone else does it \"understandable, well within their rights, good step\"\nAn accurate portrayal of exceptionalism",
">\n\nPeople have a hard time applying the same logic to things they like.",
">\n\nCool, there is certainly zero propaganda coming out Ukraine, for sure.",
">\n\nHa!",
">\n\nThat sounds like a healthy and not at all a government propaganda machine.",
">\n\nIt’s their country, let ‘em do as they choose. I can understand it during wartime, but in peacetime it sounds like one of those slippery slopes….",
">\n\nConsidering that before the war started everyone was talking about how corrupt the Ukraine government was I'd expect this to be abused for the duration of the war and after.",
">\n\nWestern media can be just as bad at spouting Russian propaganda. It seems like the editors have no ability to disseminate when I see headlines on APNews/Reuters weekly about how \"Putin is ready to negotiate but Ukraine refuses\".",
">\n\nI mean, this Business Insider article is a pretty fantastic case in point:\nare there reasonable concerns about this law? Yup.\nAre there extremely good reasons to pass it regardless, in a state of war against an adversary which thrives off propaganda? Also yes.\nWill Business Insider try and \"both sides\" this to get the \"BWUH 1984\" crowd arguing about their article? Final yes.",
">\n\nWell, Ukraine has never been the democratic heaven that the west is portraying it as in order to feed the propaganda. It's the most corrupt country in Europe and political opposition prior to the invasion was also suppressed.\nOne of Elensky's opposition leaders was in house arrest, although I can't remember his name. I think he escaped after the war started.",
">\n\nFreedom Fighter bans Dissent",
">\n\nThis is never good",
">\n\nYou either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.\n… Or maybe it’s to block Russian propaganda; idk",
">\n\nGovernment controlled media… if anyone thinks this is a good idea then you’re wrong",
">\n\nWhen has censorship ever been on the right side of history?",
">\n\nLincoln infamously censored free speech and the press during the American civil war, and often arrested (without due process!) anyone publishing media opposing the draft or expressing sympathy for the south",
">\n\n\"don't listen to that propaganda, listen to this propaganda\"",
">\n\nAnd so it begins.",
">\n\nI wonder how many pro-working class news outlets will suddenly be removed because they’re critical of Ukraine’s bourgeois government.",
">\n\nThe west is gonna act shocked when this war is over and it turns out Ukraine is still a corrupt place, but saying that makes me pro Russian or some shit",
">\n\nWhat irks me is them saying that being in the EU will supposedly make things better…",
">\n\nAs a country at war, censorship is not surprising. What will be telling is how they behave once the war is over.",
">\n\nSomething a totally not fascist would do, right?",
">\n\nwhen news reporting is killing your soldiers",
">\n\nHe already banned opposing political parties. What’s next?",
">\n\nThey also banned Russian and Rusyn languages schools. Its an ethnostate, simple as.",
">\n\nWar tends to be bad for freedom of speech. The Ukrainian people have a right to hear what pro-Russian media is saying.",
">\n\nAnd yet people claim that this guy is the savior of democracy? Aahahahahah, m'kay.",
">\n\nHonestly this isn't news. Countries are well known for curtailing news reporting during wartime. The US and UK did it during WW2. You don't want news media reporting the location of your troops or movements. \nThe test to democracy isn't what's passed during wartime, it's what's rescinded when war is over. When Ukraine eventually wins, the question will be how well do they transition to functioning, minimally corrupt transparent democracy. Will Zelensky and his successors freely give up power? Will the people elect fascist white nationalists who contributed to the war effort? The future remains to be seen. Well intentions can easily be lead astray.",
">\n\n“Could” is probably doing a lot of work here.",
">\n\nThe problem with that is that it shouldn’t. Laws need to be scoped heavily, or they will be rife with abuse.",
">\n\nSo censorship is suddenly ok because someone that’s not Russia did it.",
">\n\nThe headline sounds terrible. However reading helps add sense to it. \nBut I can't help to wonder whether blocking news websites due to \"weaponized media\" is a good thing or bad thing. I feel there's a gray line here that could be getting crossed and one has to question \"Is this propaganda that's being blocked, or is this our country censoring media brainwashing us in an attempt to strengthen their resolve?\" \nI'm all for Ukraine in this war, but in terms of a country censoring media, it's well.... a sticky subject. What action is the correct action when your enemies are using it as a weapon to confuse the public opinion?",
">\n\nI have no problem with this, RT is blocked in my country and Europe",
">\n\nafaik this is just ukraine setting up a media regulator along EU directives - all countries must have these mechanisms.",
">\n\nEU directives aren’t regulated by the government. Ukraine’s will be",
">\n\nDuring war time, I think that's fine. It's important to minimize Russian propaganda and to make sure no military information gets leaked.",
">\n\nIf the independent regulator can't be trusted during war time, why can it be trusted during peace time?",
">\n\nTo be very clear, this is many steps too far for peacetime and this bill isn't limited to wartime.\nI'm not Ukrainian and not an expert on the bill by any means but placing this under the same umbrella as the ~~federal~~ national government is dangerous and exposes the country to big problems down the road.\nI could defend it if the bill explicitly was for wartime. And many bills have expiration dates. But this is not good.",
">\n\nBut I thought he was about democracy?",
">\n\nGood if it's for the russian news websites only!\nNow, how about Ukraine's president fix that law forbidding romanian language to be taught to the romanian minority in Ukraine?\nAr we good neighbors respecting each other or are we not?",
">\n\nFinally someone who understands what is going on here.",
">\n\nGenius",
">\n\nAuto correct typo in my first post! Fixed.\nNot at all supporting suppression of dissent, but there has to be some way to block intentionally slander and misinformation, the hawking of all out lies through garbage like Alex Jones from bending the public discourse, and causing serious social harm. \nParading conspiracy theories or promoting propaganda created by the FSB to destabilize democracy isn't journalism, and isn't news. Legit journalism runs on facts and as such self corrects as better information comes to light. Propaganda either points to a new distraction or digs deeper into a lie, as do its adherents.",
">\n\nNo idea what people are complaining about. Ukraine had pro-Russian politicians in the parliament, russian fake news and pro-russian KGB \"church\" freely acting in Ukraine for years right before the invasion. The real question is why the didn't shut down them long before.",
">\n\nThe Smith act of 1940 comes to mind.\nUkraine is under threat of genocide. Let's see what happens after they win.",
">\n\nWe need to close/block russian or pro-russian websites.",
">\n\nOh no!",
">\n\nI just know its going to be a dark day if news reporters/programs are no longer allowed to make up news and are required to tell the entire story about something. \nSadly if you take away the freedom to blabber from a roof top, you also take away freedom of press",
">\n\nWhy not, news websites are a weapon and can be used by either side.",
">\n\nHmmmm. Interesting",
">\n\nThe beginning of the end",
">\n\nSuch a fascist",
">\n\nChurches next?",
">\n\nAlready",
">\n\nIt's very reasonable to find this offputting, but a ton of westerners are showing their chauvinism in this thread. Acting like any/every NATO country hasn't/wouldn't do this in times of war or great conflict is just asinine, governments pretty much everywhere will regulate whose propaganda is legal and whose isn't. Not saying it's always justified, but many westerners are acting like their shit don't stink.",
">\n\nBaltics and lot of EU countries have banned russian propoganda chanels. I agree with this. Russian propoganda is no joke and i would not recomend it for uninitiated.",
">\n\nThey didn’t ban Russian propaganda channels. Law allows government to block any news website they feel necessary. Given the track record of corruption in Ukrainian governance, this can’t be good.\nEdit: grammar",
">\n\nHaving a standard of what qualifies as news while engaged in a propaganda attack from a country several times your size if propferly monitored information through a board and independent laws could be a net positive\nI’m the USA the repeal of the fairness doctorine is often sited as a reason the news ended up with broadcasters telling people not to take a vaccine during a pandemic",
">\n\nWonder if Zelenskky will be Ukraine's ~~Dictator~~ President in 10 years time.",
">\n\nGet your popcorn while redditors try to tell you why this is a good thing and Zelensky can do no wrong",
">\n\nYikes",
">\n\nUkraine was corrupt as all hell before Russia invaded, and continue corrupt and not worthy of trust. Just because they're fighting for their sovereignty against Putin's evil ass doesn't mean they get a blank check to do whatever the fuck they want and pass it off as correct or for some greater good. This is authoritarian bullshit, nothing else.",
">\n\nIt's quite interesting to see the Zelensky fan boys doing their mental gymnastics to defend this policy. Having a government control what you can see is not good at all: it's a tactic thar has been used by most of the worst rulers in history: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.",
">\n\nI can understand why but honestly I think it’s a very slippery slope that most humans aren’t able to handle. Where’s the line at what is ok and what isn’t. A human decides that and humans are fallible.",
">\n\nThey were right to question this move. I hope the good President/Warrior isn't losing his head. This war is insane.",
">\n\nOne the one hand not too good depending on Implementation. One the other hand the legal framework to go against russian propaganda, misinformation and other Media based attenpts against ukraine.",
">\n\nThere is a lot of anti-Ukraine posts on OP’s profile, take this news with a grain of salt",
">\n\nThe UK blocked Russia Today and Sputnik from UK Satellites to stop their propoganda. It's a sensible thing to do in times of conflict.. we did the same to Nazi Germany also.",
">\n\nI think I just lost all respect for this guy",
">\n\nSecond most corrupt country in Europe (after Russia)... What else do you expect.",
">\n\nTough to balance government overreach against foreign interference.",
">\n\nThat's not good.",
">\n\nDon't pull a \"Russia\" bro. Wrong path to be taking.",
">\n\nYou do realize Russian propaganda channels are there and available to zombify people?\nI have spent so much of my personal time to report Youtube Channel24 videos and you have to show in each video where there is an explicit piece where there was a terrorist speech, it is tedious !! Also, noone seem to read an article cause the content is not like that at all",
">\n\nFor some people (especially here on reddit lmao) russian propaganda is any piece of informations you disagree with, and anyone saying it is either a bot or russian troll",
">\n\nRemember when the Russians invaded claiming there were Nazis in Ukraine?\nPepperidge Farms remembers.",
">\n\nPutin is not the good guy, but this doesn't mean Zelensky and the Ukranian government are a bunch of angels.",
">\n\nHe has cracked down on unions too.",
">\n\nDuring the civil war Lincoln has confederate sympathizing reports thrown in jail without trial. \nThis is not new",
">\n\nSomething seriously off with this man,",
">\n\nI’m sure when peace arrives, and one day Zelenskyy is replaced by a nefarious leader this law will also be remove right? Right?",
">\n\nLol watching this happen in slow motion while supposed lovers of freedom and the Ukrainian people just worship this man, who is an actor and he’s just gradually changing his role.",
">\n\nFreedom of speech? Hahaha, this is no better than Russia or China.",
">\n\nWhat a fucking dishonest headline. Shame on this publisher.",
">\n\nThis is a heck of a misleading headline, the law outlines blatant Russian propaganda sites as the issue. This is almost as bad as the reporting of them “banning orthodox religion” no they banned the orthodox Russian church, that church was using their religion as a cover to transport information back to Russia.",
">\n\nBad idea.",
">\n\nRussian propaganda is no joke and Ukraine probably needs the ability to block it. It's a shame this wasn't passed as wartime emergency legislation with an automatic repeal date though.",
">\n\nNothing to see here, just the good guys fighting against evil Russia 😅",
">\n\nAnd down the slippery slope we continue to slide.",
">\n\nHalf the problem with war now is the media giving g the game away ... there should 100% be restrictions on what the media can post during war time",
">\n\nWell, this headline is awful. First of all we already have such thing since 2015 I believe (one of popular examples is \"vk\" website), secondly - it's just EU standards. \nBtw we still don't have \"war censorship\", you can critisize government all you want.",
">\n\nImagine defending media censorship. China must be proud",
">\n\nRussia does exactly the same thing blocking websites that they consider to be spreading misinformation. And this is obviously bad.\nYet, the amount of double standards in this thread with people thinking that \"it's fine when Ukraine does it\" is absurd.\nBefore the war Ukraine was always on the top positions of most corrupt countries in Europe. This law WILL be abused.",
">\n\nRemember when he said he wanted to run his country more like a democracy…yeah, he just wants those dollars from the U.S",
">\n\nYup this is not the right way to do stuff... If you really wanna show that you are cleaning up the corruptness in your country then don't start making laws like this shit.",
">\n\nVery freedom loving and democratic",
">\n\nNothing says countering russian propaganda like censorship and more propaganda 👍",
">\n\nWatch Ukraine turn into a brutal dictatorship lead by the dancing with the stars jokey guy.",
">\n\nIts the same laws that govern the EU.",
">\n\nWell the corruption continues. “I think it’s good when we do it” Is not a good justification.",
">\n\nDictator for life",
">\n\nIt should only be valid as long as the war against Russia.",
">\n\nRussian \"new\" Websites, which actually are just propaganda machineries, should ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE be blocked.",
">\n\nUkraine has its own propaganda too.",
">\n\nName one nation in a conflict that doesn't censor and put out nationalistic/propaganda. Edited to clarify.",
">\n\nExactly man, that is why I'm saying that censoring is not the right call. Once the government censors you from reading international media, you are influenced by your own government and you know and think only what they want you to know and think. Having trust in your own government is ok but trusting it blindly is not. It makes you easily influenced by your own government,a puppet and as you said, every nation in conflict is making propaganda.",
">\n\nNo different than really any other country that has been in a total war. I just hope that's it's a temporary war measure, which I'm not sure it is.",
">\n\nTotally normal behavior",
">\n\nSounds like news sensorship to me..",
">\n\nHope rises. Discontent rises slightly.\nBeware of the poet's suicide.\nP.s. This is a game reference",
">\n\n1000% normal in war times. Many countries have done this before. It's impossible for Ukraine not to do this given how much Russia is investing into disinformation. Literally having speaker cars driving through the streets with propaganda 24/7. Broadcasting fake news into Ukraine through all mediums. If they get to a large group of people in the US imagine the amount of people they can influence when it comes to their neighbors.\nThe only way they can get Ukraine to lose the war is to break the people's will to fight and they're doing this by not only bombing schools, playgrounds, hospitals and powerplants to freeze them to death but also spreading propaganda to make the people second guess their leadership",
">\n\nCountries do this all the time. Even the US.\nStop trying to vilify Ukraine to appease that shit cabbage Putin. Russia invaded them, not the other way around.",
">\n\nI love watching people try to balance not being called out on ignoring Ukraine's pre-existing corruption and keeping the \"Ukraine = unquestionable good guys\" narrative.\nThere's nothing that says war HAS to be \"good guys vs bad guys\".",
">\n\nPeople have every right to complain about this. But remember Ukraine is fighting in the fields for their very existence.",
">\n\nZelensky understands Democracy more than people think. He's most likely changing it now because of the WAR so that not much information gets back to the enemy.. Remember when Ukraine did both big successful offensives they had a Media Blackout.",
">\n\nOnly state-approved propaganda is authorized",
">\n\nPeople are dumbasses in this thread, and have no idea how propaganda, and filtering media works. There's a reason why propaganda is dangerous, and there are reasons why it's blocked.\nNarrow minded AF.",
">\n\nIn war, certain civil liberties are curtailed. It is this way, it’s always been this way, and it will always be this way. War is not a game. It’s not good that this happens, of course, but it’s one of the many reasons war is bad.",
">\n\nThis definitely isn't suspicious at all",
">\n\nIt’s a standard phenomenon at war time.",
">\n\nOf course he did",
">\n\nWeeeird. Can’t wait to read all the comments somehow blaming this on Russia.",
">\n\nDoesn't sound very Democratic to me, Bob",
">\n\nI wish America would do the same or at least punish journalist & there agencies that promote there views if they are acting in a propagandists manor kinda like Cough 🦊 Cough 🦊",
">\n\nI get why they would want some censorship after the media leaked their military strategy, but I think it should be very limited",
">\n\nSo he is fascist?",
">\n\nyep that's what a dictator does. also take note when russian invaded, they had to scramble to deliver guns to the citizens and were ill prepared. this is what NOT having a 2nd amendment looks like. a complete clusterF",
">\n\nUh oh",
">\n\nBiden probably gave him the idea",
">\n\nHe's been silencing dissenting voices for some time now nothing new, except now he's a genuine dictator.",
">\n\nSo you mean to tell me that all this money the United States is sending to Ukraine isn’t really to save democracy? Didn’t see that coming.",
">\n\nDetractors paint this as some nefarious bid for authoritarianism when in reality it is the usual sort of issue that democratic governments face.\nIn Canada, the Canadian Television and Radio Commission (CRTC) is supposed to operate at arms length from the government but the head and Governor in Council are determined by the Prime Minister and Cabinet.\nUltimately, whether or not a body is elected by government or is “independent”, the reality is that money talks and the oligarchical media empires will manipulate either the politicians or independent boards to get their way.\nThe CRTC in Canada for instance, is seen by the public to serve the best interests of the media empires, not Canadians.",
">\n\nWhen a western democracy is fighting for its life, it’s important to keep a United front. \nUkraine has A LOT of Russian propaganda that, like we’ve seen from the American right, have pushed baseless conspiracies that only hurt and divide a country.",
">\n\nAnybody who think this is something that only applies temporarily are human golden retrievers",
">\n\nYup just like Canada’s PM Trudeau.",
">\n\nSomething like this isn't that surprising or unusual. The U.S. did the same during WW2 and that wasn't even a battle on home soil. His country is probably getting blasted with a full on russian media campaign and everyone knows it."
] |
>
Censorship? Not cool... | [
"Just curious, how did the US regulate media during WWII if at all? Obviously the war department was churning out war news and propaganda, but did they censor/restrict any media from being published?",
">\n\nYes, absolutely. They formed the Office of Censorship and heavily regulated the press, especially radio. But it was almost entirely geared towards preventing information on troop movements and weather from getting out, and coded enemy messages from getting in. They didn't force stations to broadcast propaganda or ban negative stories, and most of the restrictions were followed voluntarily.\nThere was also the Office of War Information which was responsible for producing propaganda and rejected film scripts that were critical or negative regarding the war effort - but they did not restrict the press to my knowledge.",
">\n\nSuper interesting! Thanks for sharing. Yes it seems this was a bit more functional about what comes in and out of the country, not necessarily with what’s published domestically as far as swaying public opinion. Also TIL the catch phrase “loose lips sink ships” came from this agency.\nThe voluntary aspect is somewhat enlightening as to how unified the country was in the war effort. The cynic in me makes me even more curious if there was other censorship at play outside of this agency that helped create that sentiment. I feel like someone would have replied about some landmark Supreme Court case by now though if that were the case.",
">\n\nAmerican's have a curious ability to get in line when there is a clear and present danger to the nation. Someone summed it up with \"You can always count on American's to do the right thing when they have no other option.\"",
">\n\nWinston Churchill famously stated “Americans will always do the right thing, only after they have tried everything else.\"\nIs that the quote you are thinking of?",
">\n\nIt was attributed to him, but tracing things down, it was apparent not said by him and I’ve heard both versions.",
">\n\nLawmakers have touted the bill as an effort to bring Ukraine's media laws closer to European Union standards as the country makes a bid to join the 27-member bloc. They have also argued that it will help counter Russian propaganda as Russia's invasion of Ukraine nears its one-year anniversary.\nBut organizations representing journalists say the law will erode press freedoms in Ukraine. Under the law, Ukraine's media regulator could block websites that are not registered with the government as news organizations, The Kyiv Independent reported on Friday. \nThe law is at odds with freedoms given to the press in other parts of Europe, the European Federation of Journalists said in a statement on Friday, according to the Times. \nEdit: because some users argued (with justification) that my post kept specific details hidden, I added the rest of the news post. I also checked the Kyiv Independent and it checks out.",
">\n\nWhile this is true, if I'm not mistaken some EU members have still spoken out against the bill - mainly because the new regulatory body will be led/run by the federal government, whereas in the EU they're generally a separate entity from the government run by civilians\nStill a step in the right direction, but I can see where people worry",
">\n\nHow is censorship a right step in any direction?",
">\n\nIt's indeed a double edged sword. On the one hand self-proclaimed news networks might spread their political agenda or incite illegal behaviour, on the other hand it's a real shortcut to control the media. This needs to be handled very carefully and probably by a body that's not interwoven with the government.",
">\n\nThere are few good options in war, especially a total war where the very survival of a country and ethnolinguistic group is at risk. Zelenskyy is probably going a bit far, but it’s hard to really blame him.",
">\n\nDepends on what the censorship is… trying to dispel discontentment with current ruling party or suppressing enemy state misinformation.",
">\n\nI think it's safe to infer the reasoning is to filter propaganda. I don't think there is much discontent with the current ruling party. Zelensky\"s approval ratings have been through the roof. Although, it's an easy power to abuse in the wrong hands.",
">\n\nI mean, can you think of a single instance in history where censorship was a net societal benefit, rolled back when no longer necessary, and not abused over the long-term? Nothing comes to mind.\nJournalists surely also know this to be the case, hence their outspoken opposition to the measure.",
">\n\nAbraham Lincoln suspending habeas corpus in the civil war is probably the best example for Americans in here. Would it be tolerated during peacetime? hell no. Would it be tolerated when the entire country is at an inflection point like the Ukraine is in 2023 and the US in 1861. Yes.\nedit: left out Abe's last name",
">\n\nWhat's it like to be on a first-name basis with Abraham Lincoln?",
">\n\nIt does make sense to block Russian \"news\" channels but its easily open to abuse",
">\n\nThis. Sounds like the Sedition Act of 1917. Easy to pass during wartime and makes sense, but probably wouldn’t get passed during peacetime. \nIt also doesn’t help that Ukraine was like #31 on the world’s corruption index prior to the war.",
">\n\nI vaguely recall reading that prior to the war Ukraine was the second most corrupt country in Europe, behind Russia.",
">\n\nThat's pretty much why Zelensky won the elections, he ran on an anti-corruption platform and has actually done a lot to combat it",
">\n\nLike what?",
">\n\nno more oligarchs",
">\n\nYou really think he ended the oligarchy? And it will only get 100x worse after the war when western businessmen come in to “fix” the country.",
">\n\nLmao this. We should all remember that he was also named in the Panama papers for holding 20+ million overseas",
">\n\nWhats so weird about successful actor having 20million to their name?",
">\n\nThey’ve been blocking the BBC on and off for years.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest lessons the world will learn from this conflict is that while Ukraine is/are the good guys… they are far, far behind a system that is akin to the western world.\nmy father’s grandfather was from Ukraine.\nAs he likes to say, Ukraine had 30 years to get their shit together so that when this day (02/24/22, Russia’s invasion which was always an inevitability if you know Ukraine, Ukraine’s history and geopolitics) arrived they’d be more than just militarily prepared.\nThey would be a part of NATO.. but Ukraine wanted to dip its toes in both democracy and wide-scale corruption.",
">\n\nFrom what I understand, the oligarchs and who grabbed up all the candy when the USSR piñata ruptured have been a big part of the problem. They have lost a lot of power and wealth, and some experts believe that this could create a political space for serious reform. I sure hope so!",
">\n\nExactly not to mention many oligarchs actually own news outlets and even television stations. I get what they’re trying to do given the war, but they have to be careful with the execution of it because it’s a step away from authoritarian control over news and media. News and media should be free but within limits too. Ex. Carlson tucker on Fox News in the US isn’t exactly unbiased. If there was a Ukrainian counterpart, they’d try to shut it down.",
">\n\nA nation in war time does not have the luxury of entertaining 100% freedom of information, especially considering the constant misinformation campaigns waged by Russia on top of its land war.",
">\n\nShutting on and off news websites? Banning political parties? BAWWW TYRANNY.\n\nPeople should not be naive, Ukraine is at war, the survival of their nation is at stake.",
">\n\nPrecisely, and psyops against Ukraine are extremely active.\nI hope they can reach Western values one day, but this is war against a much bigger Country that does not play fair. \nLet's let Ukraine win this war first and give them some time to rebuild before their culture becomes more Western.",
">\n\nHere in Adelaide, Australia, we did that. In the days before websites so he wasn't blocked, but a certain editor knew he wasn't welcome and had to leave town. He was an awful liar and very divisive. Inherited a newspaper from his dad called 'The News'.\nAfter he left town he started a company named after the Adelaide paper, NewsCorp. Rupert Murdoch was the name he went by (though his first name is really Keith, not Rupert). Wonder whatever happened to him?",
">\n\nHe got mad and decided to ruin the world.",
">\n\n\"I think it's good when we do it\" is a dangerous justification",
">\n\nYes, it is very similar to how the freedom of press declined in Russia. All medias were required to be registered by some governmental department in order to \"control the flow of information from abroad\". In no time it became the instrument of banning unwanted media.\nThough I admit banning Russian state media is for the better. Could they be banned in Russia itself, too?",
">\n\nThe thing is who defines that the media is pro-Russian. While it stays for the Ukrainian government to define, Ukrainian freedom of speech basically is being destroyed.",
">\n\nNot really enough information in the article to make an informed opinion on this.\n \nDecision was made by parliament, Zelenskyy's role in this is to sign the law, much like other world leaders don't necessarily agree with everything they have to sign.\nThe article mentions this is to allow them to ban websites not listed as media, which to me means the ability to ban any website if it isn't a registered media website. So, specifically to not allow them to block news websites so long as they are registered.\nAlso mentions this was to try and bring them more in line with EU countries, while at the same time saying it does the opposite.\n \nDo we have a link to the actual text of the new law?",
">\n\nSlippery slope",
">\n\nMost of the west have already blocked RT for their disinformation.",
">\n\nPrivate companies blocking is one thing, but governments is very different.\nA lot of laws created with \"good intentions\" are very often used for bad things, especially in countries with long history of corruption like Ukraine.",
">\n\nFrance is blocking RT",
">\n\nThese things happen during war, in every country.\nThe real test is seeing what laws will be repealed once this is all over imo.",
">\n\n\nThe real test is seeing what laws will be repealed once this is all over\n\nNone of them will be. Governments never voluntarily surrender any measure of control over the people. That's why the US is still officially in a state of national emergency 22 years after 9/11: so that the government elites can keep using their \"temporary\" emergency powers.",
">\n\nThe exact opposite has been happening in a lot of cases. The war has been used as an excuse to carry out a lot of deregulation and liberalization",
">\n\nLike when they banned left wing opposition parties?",
">\n\nArticle says websites not registered as media could be blocked. Kind of the opposite of what the headline says...",
">\n\nGovernments never relinquish power once they have it. Look at how the patriot act went from protecting our country to taking our rights. This is not a slippery slope. This is what corruption looks like. I really want Ukraine to succeed but decisions like this gives me trepidation.",
">\n\nRussia China bans websites \"fascists, ugly despots, violating human rights\" \nsomeone else does it \"understandable, well within their rights, good step\"\nAn accurate portrayal of exceptionalism",
">\n\nPeople have a hard time applying the same logic to things they like.",
">\n\nCool, there is certainly zero propaganda coming out Ukraine, for sure.",
">\n\nHa!",
">\n\nThat sounds like a healthy and not at all a government propaganda machine.",
">\n\nIt’s their country, let ‘em do as they choose. I can understand it during wartime, but in peacetime it sounds like one of those slippery slopes….",
">\n\nConsidering that before the war started everyone was talking about how corrupt the Ukraine government was I'd expect this to be abused for the duration of the war and after.",
">\n\nWestern media can be just as bad at spouting Russian propaganda. It seems like the editors have no ability to disseminate when I see headlines on APNews/Reuters weekly about how \"Putin is ready to negotiate but Ukraine refuses\".",
">\n\nI mean, this Business Insider article is a pretty fantastic case in point:\nare there reasonable concerns about this law? Yup.\nAre there extremely good reasons to pass it regardless, in a state of war against an adversary which thrives off propaganda? Also yes.\nWill Business Insider try and \"both sides\" this to get the \"BWUH 1984\" crowd arguing about their article? Final yes.",
">\n\nWell, Ukraine has never been the democratic heaven that the west is portraying it as in order to feed the propaganda. It's the most corrupt country in Europe and political opposition prior to the invasion was also suppressed.\nOne of Elensky's opposition leaders was in house arrest, although I can't remember his name. I think he escaped after the war started.",
">\n\nFreedom Fighter bans Dissent",
">\n\nThis is never good",
">\n\nYou either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.\n… Or maybe it’s to block Russian propaganda; idk",
">\n\nGovernment controlled media… if anyone thinks this is a good idea then you’re wrong",
">\n\nWhen has censorship ever been on the right side of history?",
">\n\nLincoln infamously censored free speech and the press during the American civil war, and often arrested (without due process!) anyone publishing media opposing the draft or expressing sympathy for the south",
">\n\n\"don't listen to that propaganda, listen to this propaganda\"",
">\n\nAnd so it begins.",
">\n\nI wonder how many pro-working class news outlets will suddenly be removed because they’re critical of Ukraine’s bourgeois government.",
">\n\nThe west is gonna act shocked when this war is over and it turns out Ukraine is still a corrupt place, but saying that makes me pro Russian or some shit",
">\n\nWhat irks me is them saying that being in the EU will supposedly make things better…",
">\n\nAs a country at war, censorship is not surprising. What will be telling is how they behave once the war is over.",
">\n\nSomething a totally not fascist would do, right?",
">\n\nwhen news reporting is killing your soldiers",
">\n\nHe already banned opposing political parties. What’s next?",
">\n\nThey also banned Russian and Rusyn languages schools. Its an ethnostate, simple as.",
">\n\nWar tends to be bad for freedom of speech. The Ukrainian people have a right to hear what pro-Russian media is saying.",
">\n\nAnd yet people claim that this guy is the savior of democracy? Aahahahahah, m'kay.",
">\n\nHonestly this isn't news. Countries are well known for curtailing news reporting during wartime. The US and UK did it during WW2. You don't want news media reporting the location of your troops or movements. \nThe test to democracy isn't what's passed during wartime, it's what's rescinded when war is over. When Ukraine eventually wins, the question will be how well do they transition to functioning, minimally corrupt transparent democracy. Will Zelensky and his successors freely give up power? Will the people elect fascist white nationalists who contributed to the war effort? The future remains to be seen. Well intentions can easily be lead astray.",
">\n\n“Could” is probably doing a lot of work here.",
">\n\nThe problem with that is that it shouldn’t. Laws need to be scoped heavily, or they will be rife with abuse.",
">\n\nSo censorship is suddenly ok because someone that’s not Russia did it.",
">\n\nThe headline sounds terrible. However reading helps add sense to it. \nBut I can't help to wonder whether blocking news websites due to \"weaponized media\" is a good thing or bad thing. I feel there's a gray line here that could be getting crossed and one has to question \"Is this propaganda that's being blocked, or is this our country censoring media brainwashing us in an attempt to strengthen their resolve?\" \nI'm all for Ukraine in this war, but in terms of a country censoring media, it's well.... a sticky subject. What action is the correct action when your enemies are using it as a weapon to confuse the public opinion?",
">\n\nI have no problem with this, RT is blocked in my country and Europe",
">\n\nafaik this is just ukraine setting up a media regulator along EU directives - all countries must have these mechanisms.",
">\n\nEU directives aren’t regulated by the government. Ukraine’s will be",
">\n\nDuring war time, I think that's fine. It's important to minimize Russian propaganda and to make sure no military information gets leaked.",
">\n\nIf the independent regulator can't be trusted during war time, why can it be trusted during peace time?",
">\n\nTo be very clear, this is many steps too far for peacetime and this bill isn't limited to wartime.\nI'm not Ukrainian and not an expert on the bill by any means but placing this under the same umbrella as the ~~federal~~ national government is dangerous and exposes the country to big problems down the road.\nI could defend it if the bill explicitly was for wartime. And many bills have expiration dates. But this is not good.",
">\n\nBut I thought he was about democracy?",
">\n\nGood if it's for the russian news websites only!\nNow, how about Ukraine's president fix that law forbidding romanian language to be taught to the romanian minority in Ukraine?\nAr we good neighbors respecting each other or are we not?",
">\n\nFinally someone who understands what is going on here.",
">\n\nGenius",
">\n\nAuto correct typo in my first post! Fixed.\nNot at all supporting suppression of dissent, but there has to be some way to block intentionally slander and misinformation, the hawking of all out lies through garbage like Alex Jones from bending the public discourse, and causing serious social harm. \nParading conspiracy theories or promoting propaganda created by the FSB to destabilize democracy isn't journalism, and isn't news. Legit journalism runs on facts and as such self corrects as better information comes to light. Propaganda either points to a new distraction or digs deeper into a lie, as do its adherents.",
">\n\nNo idea what people are complaining about. Ukraine had pro-Russian politicians in the parliament, russian fake news and pro-russian KGB \"church\" freely acting in Ukraine for years right before the invasion. The real question is why the didn't shut down them long before.",
">\n\nThe Smith act of 1940 comes to mind.\nUkraine is under threat of genocide. Let's see what happens after they win.",
">\n\nWe need to close/block russian or pro-russian websites.",
">\n\nOh no!",
">\n\nI just know its going to be a dark day if news reporters/programs are no longer allowed to make up news and are required to tell the entire story about something. \nSadly if you take away the freedom to blabber from a roof top, you also take away freedom of press",
">\n\nWhy not, news websites are a weapon and can be used by either side.",
">\n\nHmmmm. Interesting",
">\n\nThe beginning of the end",
">\n\nSuch a fascist",
">\n\nChurches next?",
">\n\nAlready",
">\n\nIt's very reasonable to find this offputting, but a ton of westerners are showing their chauvinism in this thread. Acting like any/every NATO country hasn't/wouldn't do this in times of war or great conflict is just asinine, governments pretty much everywhere will regulate whose propaganda is legal and whose isn't. Not saying it's always justified, but many westerners are acting like their shit don't stink.",
">\n\nBaltics and lot of EU countries have banned russian propoganda chanels. I agree with this. Russian propoganda is no joke and i would not recomend it for uninitiated.",
">\n\nThey didn’t ban Russian propaganda channels. Law allows government to block any news website they feel necessary. Given the track record of corruption in Ukrainian governance, this can’t be good.\nEdit: grammar",
">\n\nHaving a standard of what qualifies as news while engaged in a propaganda attack from a country several times your size if propferly monitored information through a board and independent laws could be a net positive\nI’m the USA the repeal of the fairness doctorine is often sited as a reason the news ended up with broadcasters telling people not to take a vaccine during a pandemic",
">\n\nWonder if Zelenskky will be Ukraine's ~~Dictator~~ President in 10 years time.",
">\n\nGet your popcorn while redditors try to tell you why this is a good thing and Zelensky can do no wrong",
">\n\nYikes",
">\n\nUkraine was corrupt as all hell before Russia invaded, and continue corrupt and not worthy of trust. Just because they're fighting for their sovereignty against Putin's evil ass doesn't mean they get a blank check to do whatever the fuck they want and pass it off as correct or for some greater good. This is authoritarian bullshit, nothing else.",
">\n\nIt's quite interesting to see the Zelensky fan boys doing their mental gymnastics to defend this policy. Having a government control what you can see is not good at all: it's a tactic thar has been used by most of the worst rulers in history: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.",
">\n\nI can understand why but honestly I think it’s a very slippery slope that most humans aren’t able to handle. Where’s the line at what is ok and what isn’t. A human decides that and humans are fallible.",
">\n\nThey were right to question this move. I hope the good President/Warrior isn't losing his head. This war is insane.",
">\n\nOne the one hand not too good depending on Implementation. One the other hand the legal framework to go against russian propaganda, misinformation and other Media based attenpts against ukraine.",
">\n\nThere is a lot of anti-Ukraine posts on OP’s profile, take this news with a grain of salt",
">\n\nThe UK blocked Russia Today and Sputnik from UK Satellites to stop their propoganda. It's a sensible thing to do in times of conflict.. we did the same to Nazi Germany also.",
">\n\nI think I just lost all respect for this guy",
">\n\nSecond most corrupt country in Europe (after Russia)... What else do you expect.",
">\n\nTough to balance government overreach against foreign interference.",
">\n\nThat's not good.",
">\n\nDon't pull a \"Russia\" bro. Wrong path to be taking.",
">\n\nYou do realize Russian propaganda channels are there and available to zombify people?\nI have spent so much of my personal time to report Youtube Channel24 videos and you have to show in each video where there is an explicit piece where there was a terrorist speech, it is tedious !! Also, noone seem to read an article cause the content is not like that at all",
">\n\nFor some people (especially here on reddit lmao) russian propaganda is any piece of informations you disagree with, and anyone saying it is either a bot or russian troll",
">\n\nRemember when the Russians invaded claiming there were Nazis in Ukraine?\nPepperidge Farms remembers.",
">\n\nPutin is not the good guy, but this doesn't mean Zelensky and the Ukranian government are a bunch of angels.",
">\n\nHe has cracked down on unions too.",
">\n\nDuring the civil war Lincoln has confederate sympathizing reports thrown in jail without trial. \nThis is not new",
">\n\nSomething seriously off with this man,",
">\n\nI’m sure when peace arrives, and one day Zelenskyy is replaced by a nefarious leader this law will also be remove right? Right?",
">\n\nLol watching this happen in slow motion while supposed lovers of freedom and the Ukrainian people just worship this man, who is an actor and he’s just gradually changing his role.",
">\n\nFreedom of speech? Hahaha, this is no better than Russia or China.",
">\n\nWhat a fucking dishonest headline. Shame on this publisher.",
">\n\nThis is a heck of a misleading headline, the law outlines blatant Russian propaganda sites as the issue. This is almost as bad as the reporting of them “banning orthodox religion” no they banned the orthodox Russian church, that church was using their religion as a cover to transport information back to Russia.",
">\n\nBad idea.",
">\n\nRussian propaganda is no joke and Ukraine probably needs the ability to block it. It's a shame this wasn't passed as wartime emergency legislation with an automatic repeal date though.",
">\n\nNothing to see here, just the good guys fighting against evil Russia 😅",
">\n\nAnd down the slippery slope we continue to slide.",
">\n\nHalf the problem with war now is the media giving g the game away ... there should 100% be restrictions on what the media can post during war time",
">\n\nWell, this headline is awful. First of all we already have such thing since 2015 I believe (one of popular examples is \"vk\" website), secondly - it's just EU standards. \nBtw we still don't have \"war censorship\", you can critisize government all you want.",
">\n\nImagine defending media censorship. China must be proud",
">\n\nRussia does exactly the same thing blocking websites that they consider to be spreading misinformation. And this is obviously bad.\nYet, the amount of double standards in this thread with people thinking that \"it's fine when Ukraine does it\" is absurd.\nBefore the war Ukraine was always on the top positions of most corrupt countries in Europe. This law WILL be abused.",
">\n\nRemember when he said he wanted to run his country more like a democracy…yeah, he just wants those dollars from the U.S",
">\n\nYup this is not the right way to do stuff... If you really wanna show that you are cleaning up the corruptness in your country then don't start making laws like this shit.",
">\n\nVery freedom loving and democratic",
">\n\nNothing says countering russian propaganda like censorship and more propaganda 👍",
">\n\nWatch Ukraine turn into a brutal dictatorship lead by the dancing with the stars jokey guy.",
">\n\nIts the same laws that govern the EU.",
">\n\nWell the corruption continues. “I think it’s good when we do it” Is not a good justification.",
">\n\nDictator for life",
">\n\nIt should only be valid as long as the war against Russia.",
">\n\nRussian \"new\" Websites, which actually are just propaganda machineries, should ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE be blocked.",
">\n\nUkraine has its own propaganda too.",
">\n\nName one nation in a conflict that doesn't censor and put out nationalistic/propaganda. Edited to clarify.",
">\n\nExactly man, that is why I'm saying that censoring is not the right call. Once the government censors you from reading international media, you are influenced by your own government and you know and think only what they want you to know and think. Having trust in your own government is ok but trusting it blindly is not. It makes you easily influenced by your own government,a puppet and as you said, every nation in conflict is making propaganda.",
">\n\nNo different than really any other country that has been in a total war. I just hope that's it's a temporary war measure, which I'm not sure it is.",
">\n\nTotally normal behavior",
">\n\nSounds like news sensorship to me..",
">\n\nHope rises. Discontent rises slightly.\nBeware of the poet's suicide.\nP.s. This is a game reference",
">\n\n1000% normal in war times. Many countries have done this before. It's impossible for Ukraine not to do this given how much Russia is investing into disinformation. Literally having speaker cars driving through the streets with propaganda 24/7. Broadcasting fake news into Ukraine through all mediums. If they get to a large group of people in the US imagine the amount of people they can influence when it comes to their neighbors.\nThe only way they can get Ukraine to lose the war is to break the people's will to fight and they're doing this by not only bombing schools, playgrounds, hospitals and powerplants to freeze them to death but also spreading propaganda to make the people second guess their leadership",
">\n\nCountries do this all the time. Even the US.\nStop trying to vilify Ukraine to appease that shit cabbage Putin. Russia invaded them, not the other way around.",
">\n\nI love watching people try to balance not being called out on ignoring Ukraine's pre-existing corruption and keeping the \"Ukraine = unquestionable good guys\" narrative.\nThere's nothing that says war HAS to be \"good guys vs bad guys\".",
">\n\nPeople have every right to complain about this. But remember Ukraine is fighting in the fields for their very existence.",
">\n\nZelensky understands Democracy more than people think. He's most likely changing it now because of the WAR so that not much information gets back to the enemy.. Remember when Ukraine did both big successful offensives they had a Media Blackout.",
">\n\nOnly state-approved propaganda is authorized",
">\n\nPeople are dumbasses in this thread, and have no idea how propaganda, and filtering media works. There's a reason why propaganda is dangerous, and there are reasons why it's blocked.\nNarrow minded AF.",
">\n\nIn war, certain civil liberties are curtailed. It is this way, it’s always been this way, and it will always be this way. War is not a game. It’s not good that this happens, of course, but it’s one of the many reasons war is bad.",
">\n\nThis definitely isn't suspicious at all",
">\n\nIt’s a standard phenomenon at war time.",
">\n\nOf course he did",
">\n\nWeeeird. Can’t wait to read all the comments somehow blaming this on Russia.",
">\n\nDoesn't sound very Democratic to me, Bob",
">\n\nI wish America would do the same or at least punish journalist & there agencies that promote there views if they are acting in a propagandists manor kinda like Cough 🦊 Cough 🦊",
">\n\nI get why they would want some censorship after the media leaked their military strategy, but I think it should be very limited",
">\n\nSo he is fascist?",
">\n\nyep that's what a dictator does. also take note when russian invaded, they had to scramble to deliver guns to the citizens and were ill prepared. this is what NOT having a 2nd amendment looks like. a complete clusterF",
">\n\nUh oh",
">\n\nBiden probably gave him the idea",
">\n\nHe's been silencing dissenting voices for some time now nothing new, except now he's a genuine dictator.",
">\n\nSo you mean to tell me that all this money the United States is sending to Ukraine isn’t really to save democracy? Didn’t see that coming.",
">\n\nDetractors paint this as some nefarious bid for authoritarianism when in reality it is the usual sort of issue that democratic governments face.\nIn Canada, the Canadian Television and Radio Commission (CRTC) is supposed to operate at arms length from the government but the head and Governor in Council are determined by the Prime Minister and Cabinet.\nUltimately, whether or not a body is elected by government or is “independent”, the reality is that money talks and the oligarchical media empires will manipulate either the politicians or independent boards to get their way.\nThe CRTC in Canada for instance, is seen by the public to serve the best interests of the media empires, not Canadians.",
">\n\nWhen a western democracy is fighting for its life, it’s important to keep a United front. \nUkraine has A LOT of Russian propaganda that, like we’ve seen from the American right, have pushed baseless conspiracies that only hurt and divide a country.",
">\n\nAnybody who think this is something that only applies temporarily are human golden retrievers",
">\n\nYup just like Canada’s PM Trudeau.",
">\n\nSomething like this isn't that surprising or unusual. The U.S. did the same during WW2 and that wasn't even a battle on home soil. His country is probably getting blasted with a full on russian media campaign and everyone knows it.",
">\n\nRussian disinformation news is a serious issue. Even my Russian Ukrainian relatives living in the US like Putin and agree with his wars."
] |
> | [
"Just curious, how did the US regulate media during WWII if at all? Obviously the war department was churning out war news and propaganda, but did they censor/restrict any media from being published?",
">\n\nYes, absolutely. They formed the Office of Censorship and heavily regulated the press, especially radio. But it was almost entirely geared towards preventing information on troop movements and weather from getting out, and coded enemy messages from getting in. They didn't force stations to broadcast propaganda or ban negative stories, and most of the restrictions were followed voluntarily.\nThere was also the Office of War Information which was responsible for producing propaganda and rejected film scripts that were critical or negative regarding the war effort - but they did not restrict the press to my knowledge.",
">\n\nSuper interesting! Thanks for sharing. Yes it seems this was a bit more functional about what comes in and out of the country, not necessarily with what’s published domestically as far as swaying public opinion. Also TIL the catch phrase “loose lips sink ships” came from this agency.\nThe voluntary aspect is somewhat enlightening as to how unified the country was in the war effort. The cynic in me makes me even more curious if there was other censorship at play outside of this agency that helped create that sentiment. I feel like someone would have replied about some landmark Supreme Court case by now though if that were the case.",
">\n\nAmerican's have a curious ability to get in line when there is a clear and present danger to the nation. Someone summed it up with \"You can always count on American's to do the right thing when they have no other option.\"",
">\n\nWinston Churchill famously stated “Americans will always do the right thing, only after they have tried everything else.\"\nIs that the quote you are thinking of?",
">\n\nIt was attributed to him, but tracing things down, it was apparent not said by him and I’ve heard both versions.",
">\n\nLawmakers have touted the bill as an effort to bring Ukraine's media laws closer to European Union standards as the country makes a bid to join the 27-member bloc. They have also argued that it will help counter Russian propaganda as Russia's invasion of Ukraine nears its one-year anniversary.\nBut organizations representing journalists say the law will erode press freedoms in Ukraine. Under the law, Ukraine's media regulator could block websites that are not registered with the government as news organizations, The Kyiv Independent reported on Friday. \nThe law is at odds with freedoms given to the press in other parts of Europe, the European Federation of Journalists said in a statement on Friday, according to the Times. \nEdit: because some users argued (with justification) that my post kept specific details hidden, I added the rest of the news post. I also checked the Kyiv Independent and it checks out.",
">\n\nWhile this is true, if I'm not mistaken some EU members have still spoken out against the bill - mainly because the new regulatory body will be led/run by the federal government, whereas in the EU they're generally a separate entity from the government run by civilians\nStill a step in the right direction, but I can see where people worry",
">\n\nHow is censorship a right step in any direction?",
">\n\nIt's indeed a double edged sword. On the one hand self-proclaimed news networks might spread their political agenda or incite illegal behaviour, on the other hand it's a real shortcut to control the media. This needs to be handled very carefully and probably by a body that's not interwoven with the government.",
">\n\nThere are few good options in war, especially a total war where the very survival of a country and ethnolinguistic group is at risk. Zelenskyy is probably going a bit far, but it’s hard to really blame him.",
">\n\nDepends on what the censorship is… trying to dispel discontentment with current ruling party or suppressing enemy state misinformation.",
">\n\nI think it's safe to infer the reasoning is to filter propaganda. I don't think there is much discontent with the current ruling party. Zelensky\"s approval ratings have been through the roof. Although, it's an easy power to abuse in the wrong hands.",
">\n\nI mean, can you think of a single instance in history where censorship was a net societal benefit, rolled back when no longer necessary, and not abused over the long-term? Nothing comes to mind.\nJournalists surely also know this to be the case, hence their outspoken opposition to the measure.",
">\n\nAbraham Lincoln suspending habeas corpus in the civil war is probably the best example for Americans in here. Would it be tolerated during peacetime? hell no. Would it be tolerated when the entire country is at an inflection point like the Ukraine is in 2023 and the US in 1861. Yes.\nedit: left out Abe's last name",
">\n\nWhat's it like to be on a first-name basis with Abraham Lincoln?",
">\n\nIt does make sense to block Russian \"news\" channels but its easily open to abuse",
">\n\nThis. Sounds like the Sedition Act of 1917. Easy to pass during wartime and makes sense, but probably wouldn’t get passed during peacetime. \nIt also doesn’t help that Ukraine was like #31 on the world’s corruption index prior to the war.",
">\n\nI vaguely recall reading that prior to the war Ukraine was the second most corrupt country in Europe, behind Russia.",
">\n\nThat's pretty much why Zelensky won the elections, he ran on an anti-corruption platform and has actually done a lot to combat it",
">\n\nLike what?",
">\n\nno more oligarchs",
">\n\nYou really think he ended the oligarchy? And it will only get 100x worse after the war when western businessmen come in to “fix” the country.",
">\n\nLmao this. We should all remember that he was also named in the Panama papers for holding 20+ million overseas",
">\n\nWhats so weird about successful actor having 20million to their name?",
">\n\nThey’ve been blocking the BBC on and off for years.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest lessons the world will learn from this conflict is that while Ukraine is/are the good guys… they are far, far behind a system that is akin to the western world.\nmy father’s grandfather was from Ukraine.\nAs he likes to say, Ukraine had 30 years to get their shit together so that when this day (02/24/22, Russia’s invasion which was always an inevitability if you know Ukraine, Ukraine’s history and geopolitics) arrived they’d be more than just militarily prepared.\nThey would be a part of NATO.. but Ukraine wanted to dip its toes in both democracy and wide-scale corruption.",
">\n\nFrom what I understand, the oligarchs and who grabbed up all the candy when the USSR piñata ruptured have been a big part of the problem. They have lost a lot of power and wealth, and some experts believe that this could create a political space for serious reform. I sure hope so!",
">\n\nExactly not to mention many oligarchs actually own news outlets and even television stations. I get what they’re trying to do given the war, but they have to be careful with the execution of it because it’s a step away from authoritarian control over news and media. News and media should be free but within limits too. Ex. Carlson tucker on Fox News in the US isn’t exactly unbiased. If there was a Ukrainian counterpart, they’d try to shut it down.",
">\n\nA nation in war time does not have the luxury of entertaining 100% freedom of information, especially considering the constant misinformation campaigns waged by Russia on top of its land war.",
">\n\nShutting on and off news websites? Banning political parties? BAWWW TYRANNY.\n\nPeople should not be naive, Ukraine is at war, the survival of their nation is at stake.",
">\n\nPrecisely, and psyops against Ukraine are extremely active.\nI hope they can reach Western values one day, but this is war against a much bigger Country that does not play fair. \nLet's let Ukraine win this war first and give them some time to rebuild before their culture becomes more Western.",
">\n\nHere in Adelaide, Australia, we did that. In the days before websites so he wasn't blocked, but a certain editor knew he wasn't welcome and had to leave town. He was an awful liar and very divisive. Inherited a newspaper from his dad called 'The News'.\nAfter he left town he started a company named after the Adelaide paper, NewsCorp. Rupert Murdoch was the name he went by (though his first name is really Keith, not Rupert). Wonder whatever happened to him?",
">\n\nHe got mad and decided to ruin the world.",
">\n\n\"I think it's good when we do it\" is a dangerous justification",
">\n\nYes, it is very similar to how the freedom of press declined in Russia. All medias were required to be registered by some governmental department in order to \"control the flow of information from abroad\". In no time it became the instrument of banning unwanted media.\nThough I admit banning Russian state media is for the better. Could they be banned in Russia itself, too?",
">\n\nThe thing is who defines that the media is pro-Russian. While it stays for the Ukrainian government to define, Ukrainian freedom of speech basically is being destroyed.",
">\n\nNot really enough information in the article to make an informed opinion on this.\n \nDecision was made by parliament, Zelenskyy's role in this is to sign the law, much like other world leaders don't necessarily agree with everything they have to sign.\nThe article mentions this is to allow them to ban websites not listed as media, which to me means the ability to ban any website if it isn't a registered media website. So, specifically to not allow them to block news websites so long as they are registered.\nAlso mentions this was to try and bring them more in line with EU countries, while at the same time saying it does the opposite.\n \nDo we have a link to the actual text of the new law?",
">\n\nSlippery slope",
">\n\nMost of the west have already blocked RT for their disinformation.",
">\n\nPrivate companies blocking is one thing, but governments is very different.\nA lot of laws created with \"good intentions\" are very often used for bad things, especially in countries with long history of corruption like Ukraine.",
">\n\nFrance is blocking RT",
">\n\nThese things happen during war, in every country.\nThe real test is seeing what laws will be repealed once this is all over imo.",
">\n\n\nThe real test is seeing what laws will be repealed once this is all over\n\nNone of them will be. Governments never voluntarily surrender any measure of control over the people. That's why the US is still officially in a state of national emergency 22 years after 9/11: so that the government elites can keep using their \"temporary\" emergency powers.",
">\n\nThe exact opposite has been happening in a lot of cases. The war has been used as an excuse to carry out a lot of deregulation and liberalization",
">\n\nLike when they banned left wing opposition parties?",
">\n\nArticle says websites not registered as media could be blocked. Kind of the opposite of what the headline says...",
">\n\nGovernments never relinquish power once they have it. Look at how the patriot act went from protecting our country to taking our rights. This is not a slippery slope. This is what corruption looks like. I really want Ukraine to succeed but decisions like this gives me trepidation.",
">\n\nRussia China bans websites \"fascists, ugly despots, violating human rights\" \nsomeone else does it \"understandable, well within their rights, good step\"\nAn accurate portrayal of exceptionalism",
">\n\nPeople have a hard time applying the same logic to things they like.",
">\n\nCool, there is certainly zero propaganda coming out Ukraine, for sure.",
">\n\nHa!",
">\n\nThat sounds like a healthy and not at all a government propaganda machine.",
">\n\nIt’s their country, let ‘em do as they choose. I can understand it during wartime, but in peacetime it sounds like one of those slippery slopes….",
">\n\nConsidering that before the war started everyone was talking about how corrupt the Ukraine government was I'd expect this to be abused for the duration of the war and after.",
">\n\nWestern media can be just as bad at spouting Russian propaganda. It seems like the editors have no ability to disseminate when I see headlines on APNews/Reuters weekly about how \"Putin is ready to negotiate but Ukraine refuses\".",
">\n\nI mean, this Business Insider article is a pretty fantastic case in point:\nare there reasonable concerns about this law? Yup.\nAre there extremely good reasons to pass it regardless, in a state of war against an adversary which thrives off propaganda? Also yes.\nWill Business Insider try and \"both sides\" this to get the \"BWUH 1984\" crowd arguing about their article? Final yes.",
">\n\nWell, Ukraine has never been the democratic heaven that the west is portraying it as in order to feed the propaganda. It's the most corrupt country in Europe and political opposition prior to the invasion was also suppressed.\nOne of Elensky's opposition leaders was in house arrest, although I can't remember his name. I think he escaped after the war started.",
">\n\nFreedom Fighter bans Dissent",
">\n\nThis is never good",
">\n\nYou either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.\n… Or maybe it’s to block Russian propaganda; idk",
">\n\nGovernment controlled media… if anyone thinks this is a good idea then you’re wrong",
">\n\nWhen has censorship ever been on the right side of history?",
">\n\nLincoln infamously censored free speech and the press during the American civil war, and often arrested (without due process!) anyone publishing media opposing the draft or expressing sympathy for the south",
">\n\n\"don't listen to that propaganda, listen to this propaganda\"",
">\n\nAnd so it begins.",
">\n\nI wonder how many pro-working class news outlets will suddenly be removed because they’re critical of Ukraine’s bourgeois government.",
">\n\nThe west is gonna act shocked when this war is over and it turns out Ukraine is still a corrupt place, but saying that makes me pro Russian or some shit",
">\n\nWhat irks me is them saying that being in the EU will supposedly make things better…",
">\n\nAs a country at war, censorship is not surprising. What will be telling is how they behave once the war is over.",
">\n\nSomething a totally not fascist would do, right?",
">\n\nwhen news reporting is killing your soldiers",
">\n\nHe already banned opposing political parties. What’s next?",
">\n\nThey also banned Russian and Rusyn languages schools. Its an ethnostate, simple as.",
">\n\nWar tends to be bad for freedom of speech. The Ukrainian people have a right to hear what pro-Russian media is saying.",
">\n\nAnd yet people claim that this guy is the savior of democracy? Aahahahahah, m'kay.",
">\n\nHonestly this isn't news. Countries are well known for curtailing news reporting during wartime. The US and UK did it during WW2. You don't want news media reporting the location of your troops or movements. \nThe test to democracy isn't what's passed during wartime, it's what's rescinded when war is over. When Ukraine eventually wins, the question will be how well do they transition to functioning, minimally corrupt transparent democracy. Will Zelensky and his successors freely give up power? Will the people elect fascist white nationalists who contributed to the war effort? The future remains to be seen. Well intentions can easily be lead astray.",
">\n\n“Could” is probably doing a lot of work here.",
">\n\nThe problem with that is that it shouldn’t. Laws need to be scoped heavily, or they will be rife with abuse.",
">\n\nSo censorship is suddenly ok because someone that’s not Russia did it.",
">\n\nThe headline sounds terrible. However reading helps add sense to it. \nBut I can't help to wonder whether blocking news websites due to \"weaponized media\" is a good thing or bad thing. I feel there's a gray line here that could be getting crossed and one has to question \"Is this propaganda that's being blocked, or is this our country censoring media brainwashing us in an attempt to strengthen their resolve?\" \nI'm all for Ukraine in this war, but in terms of a country censoring media, it's well.... a sticky subject. What action is the correct action when your enemies are using it as a weapon to confuse the public opinion?",
">\n\nI have no problem with this, RT is blocked in my country and Europe",
">\n\nafaik this is just ukraine setting up a media regulator along EU directives - all countries must have these mechanisms.",
">\n\nEU directives aren’t regulated by the government. Ukraine’s will be",
">\n\nDuring war time, I think that's fine. It's important to minimize Russian propaganda and to make sure no military information gets leaked.",
">\n\nIf the independent regulator can't be trusted during war time, why can it be trusted during peace time?",
">\n\nTo be very clear, this is many steps too far for peacetime and this bill isn't limited to wartime.\nI'm not Ukrainian and not an expert on the bill by any means but placing this under the same umbrella as the ~~federal~~ national government is dangerous and exposes the country to big problems down the road.\nI could defend it if the bill explicitly was for wartime. And many bills have expiration dates. But this is not good.",
">\n\nBut I thought he was about democracy?",
">\n\nGood if it's for the russian news websites only!\nNow, how about Ukraine's president fix that law forbidding romanian language to be taught to the romanian minority in Ukraine?\nAr we good neighbors respecting each other or are we not?",
">\n\nFinally someone who understands what is going on here.",
">\n\nGenius",
">\n\nAuto correct typo in my first post! Fixed.\nNot at all supporting suppression of dissent, but there has to be some way to block intentionally slander and misinformation, the hawking of all out lies through garbage like Alex Jones from bending the public discourse, and causing serious social harm. \nParading conspiracy theories or promoting propaganda created by the FSB to destabilize democracy isn't journalism, and isn't news. Legit journalism runs on facts and as such self corrects as better information comes to light. Propaganda either points to a new distraction or digs deeper into a lie, as do its adherents.",
">\n\nNo idea what people are complaining about. Ukraine had pro-Russian politicians in the parliament, russian fake news and pro-russian KGB \"church\" freely acting in Ukraine for years right before the invasion. The real question is why the didn't shut down them long before.",
">\n\nThe Smith act of 1940 comes to mind.\nUkraine is under threat of genocide. Let's see what happens after they win.",
">\n\nWe need to close/block russian or pro-russian websites.",
">\n\nOh no!",
">\n\nI just know its going to be a dark day if news reporters/programs are no longer allowed to make up news and are required to tell the entire story about something. \nSadly if you take away the freedom to blabber from a roof top, you also take away freedom of press",
">\n\nWhy not, news websites are a weapon and can be used by either side.",
">\n\nHmmmm. Interesting",
">\n\nThe beginning of the end",
">\n\nSuch a fascist",
">\n\nChurches next?",
">\n\nAlready",
">\n\nIt's very reasonable to find this offputting, but a ton of westerners are showing their chauvinism in this thread. Acting like any/every NATO country hasn't/wouldn't do this in times of war or great conflict is just asinine, governments pretty much everywhere will regulate whose propaganda is legal and whose isn't. Not saying it's always justified, but many westerners are acting like their shit don't stink.",
">\n\nBaltics and lot of EU countries have banned russian propoganda chanels. I agree with this. Russian propoganda is no joke and i would not recomend it for uninitiated.",
">\n\nThey didn’t ban Russian propaganda channels. Law allows government to block any news website they feel necessary. Given the track record of corruption in Ukrainian governance, this can’t be good.\nEdit: grammar",
">\n\nHaving a standard of what qualifies as news while engaged in a propaganda attack from a country several times your size if propferly monitored information through a board and independent laws could be a net positive\nI’m the USA the repeal of the fairness doctorine is often sited as a reason the news ended up with broadcasters telling people not to take a vaccine during a pandemic",
">\n\nWonder if Zelenskky will be Ukraine's ~~Dictator~~ President in 10 years time.",
">\n\nGet your popcorn while redditors try to tell you why this is a good thing and Zelensky can do no wrong",
">\n\nYikes",
">\n\nUkraine was corrupt as all hell before Russia invaded, and continue corrupt and not worthy of trust. Just because they're fighting for their sovereignty against Putin's evil ass doesn't mean they get a blank check to do whatever the fuck they want and pass it off as correct or for some greater good. This is authoritarian bullshit, nothing else.",
">\n\nIt's quite interesting to see the Zelensky fan boys doing their mental gymnastics to defend this policy. Having a government control what you can see is not good at all: it's a tactic thar has been used by most of the worst rulers in history: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.",
">\n\nI can understand why but honestly I think it’s a very slippery slope that most humans aren’t able to handle. Where’s the line at what is ok and what isn’t. A human decides that and humans are fallible.",
">\n\nThey were right to question this move. I hope the good President/Warrior isn't losing his head. This war is insane.",
">\n\nOne the one hand not too good depending on Implementation. One the other hand the legal framework to go against russian propaganda, misinformation and other Media based attenpts against ukraine.",
">\n\nThere is a lot of anti-Ukraine posts on OP’s profile, take this news with a grain of salt",
">\n\nThe UK blocked Russia Today and Sputnik from UK Satellites to stop their propoganda. It's a sensible thing to do in times of conflict.. we did the same to Nazi Germany also.",
">\n\nI think I just lost all respect for this guy",
">\n\nSecond most corrupt country in Europe (after Russia)... What else do you expect.",
">\n\nTough to balance government overreach against foreign interference.",
">\n\nThat's not good.",
">\n\nDon't pull a \"Russia\" bro. Wrong path to be taking.",
">\n\nYou do realize Russian propaganda channels are there and available to zombify people?\nI have spent so much of my personal time to report Youtube Channel24 videos and you have to show in each video where there is an explicit piece where there was a terrorist speech, it is tedious !! Also, noone seem to read an article cause the content is not like that at all",
">\n\nFor some people (especially here on reddit lmao) russian propaganda is any piece of informations you disagree with, and anyone saying it is either a bot or russian troll",
">\n\nRemember when the Russians invaded claiming there were Nazis in Ukraine?\nPepperidge Farms remembers.",
">\n\nPutin is not the good guy, but this doesn't mean Zelensky and the Ukranian government are a bunch of angels.",
">\n\nHe has cracked down on unions too.",
">\n\nDuring the civil war Lincoln has confederate sympathizing reports thrown in jail without trial. \nThis is not new",
">\n\nSomething seriously off with this man,",
">\n\nI’m sure when peace arrives, and one day Zelenskyy is replaced by a nefarious leader this law will also be remove right? Right?",
">\n\nLol watching this happen in slow motion while supposed lovers of freedom and the Ukrainian people just worship this man, who is an actor and he’s just gradually changing his role.",
">\n\nFreedom of speech? Hahaha, this is no better than Russia or China.",
">\n\nWhat a fucking dishonest headline. Shame on this publisher.",
">\n\nThis is a heck of a misleading headline, the law outlines blatant Russian propaganda sites as the issue. This is almost as bad as the reporting of them “banning orthodox religion” no they banned the orthodox Russian church, that church was using their religion as a cover to transport information back to Russia.",
">\n\nBad idea.",
">\n\nRussian propaganda is no joke and Ukraine probably needs the ability to block it. It's a shame this wasn't passed as wartime emergency legislation with an automatic repeal date though.",
">\n\nNothing to see here, just the good guys fighting against evil Russia 😅",
">\n\nAnd down the slippery slope we continue to slide.",
">\n\nHalf the problem with war now is the media giving g the game away ... there should 100% be restrictions on what the media can post during war time",
">\n\nWell, this headline is awful. First of all we already have such thing since 2015 I believe (one of popular examples is \"vk\" website), secondly - it's just EU standards. \nBtw we still don't have \"war censorship\", you can critisize government all you want.",
">\n\nImagine defending media censorship. China must be proud",
">\n\nRussia does exactly the same thing blocking websites that they consider to be spreading misinformation. And this is obviously bad.\nYet, the amount of double standards in this thread with people thinking that \"it's fine when Ukraine does it\" is absurd.\nBefore the war Ukraine was always on the top positions of most corrupt countries in Europe. This law WILL be abused.",
">\n\nRemember when he said he wanted to run his country more like a democracy…yeah, he just wants those dollars from the U.S",
">\n\nYup this is not the right way to do stuff... If you really wanna show that you are cleaning up the corruptness in your country then don't start making laws like this shit.",
">\n\nVery freedom loving and democratic",
">\n\nNothing says countering russian propaganda like censorship and more propaganda 👍",
">\n\nWatch Ukraine turn into a brutal dictatorship lead by the dancing with the stars jokey guy.",
">\n\nIts the same laws that govern the EU.",
">\n\nWell the corruption continues. “I think it’s good when we do it” Is not a good justification.",
">\n\nDictator for life",
">\n\nIt should only be valid as long as the war against Russia.",
">\n\nRussian \"new\" Websites, which actually are just propaganda machineries, should ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE be blocked.",
">\n\nUkraine has its own propaganda too.",
">\n\nName one nation in a conflict that doesn't censor and put out nationalistic/propaganda. Edited to clarify.",
">\n\nExactly man, that is why I'm saying that censoring is not the right call. Once the government censors you from reading international media, you are influenced by your own government and you know and think only what they want you to know and think. Having trust in your own government is ok but trusting it blindly is not. It makes you easily influenced by your own government,a puppet and as you said, every nation in conflict is making propaganda.",
">\n\nNo different than really any other country that has been in a total war. I just hope that's it's a temporary war measure, which I'm not sure it is.",
">\n\nTotally normal behavior",
">\n\nSounds like news sensorship to me..",
">\n\nHope rises. Discontent rises slightly.\nBeware of the poet's suicide.\nP.s. This is a game reference",
">\n\n1000% normal in war times. Many countries have done this before. It's impossible for Ukraine not to do this given how much Russia is investing into disinformation. Literally having speaker cars driving through the streets with propaganda 24/7. Broadcasting fake news into Ukraine through all mediums. If they get to a large group of people in the US imagine the amount of people they can influence when it comes to their neighbors.\nThe only way they can get Ukraine to lose the war is to break the people's will to fight and they're doing this by not only bombing schools, playgrounds, hospitals and powerplants to freeze them to death but also spreading propaganda to make the people second guess their leadership",
">\n\nCountries do this all the time. Even the US.\nStop trying to vilify Ukraine to appease that shit cabbage Putin. Russia invaded them, not the other way around.",
">\n\nI love watching people try to balance not being called out on ignoring Ukraine's pre-existing corruption and keeping the \"Ukraine = unquestionable good guys\" narrative.\nThere's nothing that says war HAS to be \"good guys vs bad guys\".",
">\n\nPeople have every right to complain about this. But remember Ukraine is fighting in the fields for their very existence.",
">\n\nZelensky understands Democracy more than people think. He's most likely changing it now because of the WAR so that not much information gets back to the enemy.. Remember when Ukraine did both big successful offensives they had a Media Blackout.",
">\n\nOnly state-approved propaganda is authorized",
">\n\nPeople are dumbasses in this thread, and have no idea how propaganda, and filtering media works. There's a reason why propaganda is dangerous, and there are reasons why it's blocked.\nNarrow minded AF.",
">\n\nIn war, certain civil liberties are curtailed. It is this way, it’s always been this way, and it will always be this way. War is not a game. It’s not good that this happens, of course, but it’s one of the many reasons war is bad.",
">\n\nThis definitely isn't suspicious at all",
">\n\nIt’s a standard phenomenon at war time.",
">\n\nOf course he did",
">\n\nWeeeird. Can’t wait to read all the comments somehow blaming this on Russia.",
">\n\nDoesn't sound very Democratic to me, Bob",
">\n\nI wish America would do the same or at least punish journalist & there agencies that promote there views if they are acting in a propagandists manor kinda like Cough 🦊 Cough 🦊",
">\n\nI get why they would want some censorship after the media leaked their military strategy, but I think it should be very limited",
">\n\nSo he is fascist?",
">\n\nyep that's what a dictator does. also take note when russian invaded, they had to scramble to deliver guns to the citizens and were ill prepared. this is what NOT having a 2nd amendment looks like. a complete clusterF",
">\n\nUh oh",
">\n\nBiden probably gave him the idea",
">\n\nHe's been silencing dissenting voices for some time now nothing new, except now he's a genuine dictator.",
">\n\nSo you mean to tell me that all this money the United States is sending to Ukraine isn’t really to save democracy? Didn’t see that coming.",
">\n\nDetractors paint this as some nefarious bid for authoritarianism when in reality it is the usual sort of issue that democratic governments face.\nIn Canada, the Canadian Television and Radio Commission (CRTC) is supposed to operate at arms length from the government but the head and Governor in Council are determined by the Prime Minister and Cabinet.\nUltimately, whether or not a body is elected by government or is “independent”, the reality is that money talks and the oligarchical media empires will manipulate either the politicians or independent boards to get their way.\nThe CRTC in Canada for instance, is seen by the public to serve the best interests of the media empires, not Canadians.",
">\n\nWhen a western democracy is fighting for its life, it’s important to keep a United front. \nUkraine has A LOT of Russian propaganda that, like we’ve seen from the American right, have pushed baseless conspiracies that only hurt and divide a country.",
">\n\nAnybody who think this is something that only applies temporarily are human golden retrievers",
">\n\nYup just like Canada’s PM Trudeau.",
">\n\nSomething like this isn't that surprising or unusual. The U.S. did the same during WW2 and that wasn't even a battle on home soil. His country is probably getting blasted with a full on russian media campaign and everyone knows it.",
">\n\nRussian disinformation news is a serious issue. Even my Russian Ukrainian relatives living in the US like Putin and agree with his wars.",
">\n\nCensorship? Not cool..."
] |
$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious. | [] |
>
I am sure that will stop it.
I am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.
Just insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name? | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious."
] |
>
They don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates. | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?"
] |
>
They want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.
Maybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet. | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates."
] |
>
No, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.
I've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley. | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet."
] |
>
I think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.
You don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle. | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley."
] |
>
It's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.
I spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and "a living wage" isn't even a nearby second.
I don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.
Really though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.
But when people are higher than a kite saying things like "of they just need a job with a living wage" is kinda just silly | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle."
] |
>
I don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm.
Drugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job.
I absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time.
I would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.
As a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time. | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly"
] |
>
Housing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income) | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time."
] |
>
Sounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh? | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)"
] |
>
Fill our prisons laws | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?"
] |
>
Laws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable. | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws"
] |
>
I really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable."
] |
>
Just bring back debtors prison. | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s"
] |
>
Gross. Somehow, not surprised. | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison."
] |
>
Why didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty! | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised."
] |
>
Just like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised.",
">\n\nWhy didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty!"
] |
>
When you talk to random people on reddit about homelessness you realize that unfortunately when many people say the "homelessness problem", they don't mean that there are homeless people, they mean that they have to see homeless people.
Many people seem perfectly happy with out of sight out of mind when it comes to the homeless. | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised.",
">\n\nWhy didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty!",
">\n\nJust like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s"
] |
>
Typical conversation with a liberal (I'm a socdem) about homelessness:
Liberal: "the homelessness epidemic is inhumane. We must help these people."
Me: "yes, I agree with you 100%. Let's start a fundraiser to convert that old building into a homeless shelter or low income housing, so that-"
Liberal: "ewwwww no, I don't want homeless people here. The property value of my family's house will go down and I don't wanna see a bunch of tweakers at night."
Me: ".......... alright, I'll just do it myself. Sorry for bothering you." | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised.",
">\n\nWhy didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty!",
">\n\nJust like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s",
">\n\nWhen you talk to random people on reddit about homelessness you realize that unfortunately when many people say the \"homelessness problem\", they don't mean that there are homeless people, they mean that they have to see homeless people.\nMany people seem perfectly happy with out of sight out of mind when it comes to the homeless."
] |
>
Honest question, do you own a home yourself? | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised.",
">\n\nWhy didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty!",
">\n\nJust like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s",
">\n\nWhen you talk to random people on reddit about homelessness you realize that unfortunately when many people say the \"homelessness problem\", they don't mean that there are homeless people, they mean that they have to see homeless people.\nMany people seem perfectly happy with out of sight out of mind when it comes to the homeless.",
">\n\nTypical conversation with a liberal (I'm a socdem) about homelessness:\nLiberal: \"the homelessness epidemic is inhumane. We must help these people.\"\nMe: \"yes, I agree with you 100%. Let's start a fundraiser to convert that old building into a homeless shelter or low income housing, so that-\"\nLiberal: \"ewwwww no, I don't want homeless people here. The property value of my family's house will go down and I don't wanna see a bunch of tweakers at night.\"\nMe: \".......... alright, I'll just do it myself. Sorry for bothering you.\""
] |
>
I'll answer your question if you tell me why you're asking. Seems like bait/a trap to me. | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised.",
">\n\nWhy didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty!",
">\n\nJust like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s",
">\n\nWhen you talk to random people on reddit about homelessness you realize that unfortunately when many people say the \"homelessness problem\", they don't mean that there are homeless people, they mean that they have to see homeless people.\nMany people seem perfectly happy with out of sight out of mind when it comes to the homeless.",
">\n\nTypical conversation with a liberal (I'm a socdem) about homelessness:\nLiberal: \"the homelessness epidemic is inhumane. We must help these people.\"\nMe: \"yes, I agree with you 100%. Let's start a fundraiser to convert that old building into a homeless shelter or low income housing, so that-\"\nLiberal: \"ewwwww no, I don't want homeless people here. The property value of my family's house will go down and I don't wanna see a bunch of tweakers at night.\"\nMe: \".......... alright, I'll just do it myself. Sorry for bothering you.\"",
">\n\nHonest question, do you own a home yourself?"
] |
>
Dude’s gonna pull the “WhY aReN’t YoU hOuSiNg ThEm??!!111 | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised.",
">\n\nWhy didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty!",
">\n\nJust like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s",
">\n\nWhen you talk to random people on reddit about homelessness you realize that unfortunately when many people say the \"homelessness problem\", they don't mean that there are homeless people, they mean that they have to see homeless people.\nMany people seem perfectly happy with out of sight out of mind when it comes to the homeless.",
">\n\nTypical conversation with a liberal (I'm a socdem) about homelessness:\nLiberal: \"the homelessness epidemic is inhumane. We must help these people.\"\nMe: \"yes, I agree with you 100%. Let's start a fundraiser to convert that old building into a homeless shelter or low income housing, so that-\"\nLiberal: \"ewwwww no, I don't want homeless people here. The property value of my family's house will go down and I don't wanna see a bunch of tweakers at night.\"\nMe: \".......... alright, I'll just do it myself. Sorry for bothering you.\"",
">\n\nHonest question, do you own a home yourself?",
">\n\nI'll answer your question if you tell me why you're asking. Seems like bait/a trap to me."
] |
>
I own a home (well the bank does, but y'know), and I'd fully endorse using a nearby house as a shelter for people experiencing homelessness. Would it potentially lower property values? Maybe, but I don't really care. Would it potentially mean more petty crime in the area? Also maybe yes, but there are things that could be done to counter that, and the whole point is lifting people out of poverty so that crime isn't something they feel they need to resort to. So yeah, bring on the residential shelters! | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised.",
">\n\nWhy didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty!",
">\n\nJust like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s",
">\n\nWhen you talk to random people on reddit about homelessness you realize that unfortunately when many people say the \"homelessness problem\", they don't mean that there are homeless people, they mean that they have to see homeless people.\nMany people seem perfectly happy with out of sight out of mind when it comes to the homeless.",
">\n\nTypical conversation with a liberal (I'm a socdem) about homelessness:\nLiberal: \"the homelessness epidemic is inhumane. We must help these people.\"\nMe: \"yes, I agree with you 100%. Let's start a fundraiser to convert that old building into a homeless shelter or low income housing, so that-\"\nLiberal: \"ewwwww no, I don't want homeless people here. The property value of my family's house will go down and I don't wanna see a bunch of tweakers at night.\"\nMe: \".......... alright, I'll just do it myself. Sorry for bothering you.\"",
">\n\nHonest question, do you own a home yourself?",
">\n\nI'll answer your question if you tell me why you're asking. Seems like bait/a trap to me.",
">\n\nDude’s gonna pull the “WhY aReN’t YoU hOuSiNg ThEm??!!111"
] |
>
"We must solve homelessness by criminalizing it."
"We must stop abortion by outlawing it."
"You can't stop gun violence by outlawing guns!" | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised.",
">\n\nWhy didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty!",
">\n\nJust like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s",
">\n\nWhen you talk to random people on reddit about homelessness you realize that unfortunately when many people say the \"homelessness problem\", they don't mean that there are homeless people, they mean that they have to see homeless people.\nMany people seem perfectly happy with out of sight out of mind when it comes to the homeless.",
">\n\nTypical conversation with a liberal (I'm a socdem) about homelessness:\nLiberal: \"the homelessness epidemic is inhumane. We must help these people.\"\nMe: \"yes, I agree with you 100%. Let's start a fundraiser to convert that old building into a homeless shelter or low income housing, so that-\"\nLiberal: \"ewwwww no, I don't want homeless people here. The property value of my family's house will go down and I don't wanna see a bunch of tweakers at night.\"\nMe: \".......... alright, I'll just do it myself. Sorry for bothering you.\"",
">\n\nHonest question, do you own a home yourself?",
">\n\nI'll answer your question if you tell me why you're asking. Seems like bait/a trap to me.",
">\n\nDude’s gonna pull the “WhY aReN’t YoU hOuSiNg ThEm??!!111",
">\n\nI own a home (well the bank does, but y'know), and I'd fully endorse using a nearby house as a shelter for people experiencing homelessness. Would it potentially lower property values? Maybe, but I don't really care. Would it potentially mean more petty crime in the area? Also maybe yes, but there are things that could be done to counter that, and the whole point is lifting people out of poverty so that crime isn't something they feel they need to resort to. So yeah, bring on the residential shelters!"
] |
>
Disgusting, inhumane and incredibly immoral. How is walking the earth and poverty a crime? | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised.",
">\n\nWhy didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty!",
">\n\nJust like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s",
">\n\nWhen you talk to random people on reddit about homelessness you realize that unfortunately when many people say the \"homelessness problem\", they don't mean that there are homeless people, they mean that they have to see homeless people.\nMany people seem perfectly happy with out of sight out of mind when it comes to the homeless.",
">\n\nTypical conversation with a liberal (I'm a socdem) about homelessness:\nLiberal: \"the homelessness epidemic is inhumane. We must help these people.\"\nMe: \"yes, I agree with you 100%. Let's start a fundraiser to convert that old building into a homeless shelter or low income housing, so that-\"\nLiberal: \"ewwwww no, I don't want homeless people here. The property value of my family's house will go down and I don't wanna see a bunch of tweakers at night.\"\nMe: \".......... alright, I'll just do it myself. Sorry for bothering you.\"",
">\n\nHonest question, do you own a home yourself?",
">\n\nI'll answer your question if you tell me why you're asking. Seems like bait/a trap to me.",
">\n\nDude’s gonna pull the “WhY aReN’t YoU hOuSiNg ThEm??!!111",
">\n\nI own a home (well the bank does, but y'know), and I'd fully endorse using a nearby house as a shelter for people experiencing homelessness. Would it potentially lower property values? Maybe, but I don't really care. Would it potentially mean more petty crime in the area? Also maybe yes, but there are things that could be done to counter that, and the whole point is lifting people out of poverty so that crime isn't something they feel they need to resort to. So yeah, bring on the residential shelters!",
">\n\n\"We must solve homelessness by criminalizing it.\"\n\"We must stop abortion by outlawing it.\"\n\"You can't stop gun violence by outlawing guns!\""
] |
>
How is walking the earth and poverty a crime?
What's even funnier is that these people claim to be Christians, followers of a man who famously had "no place to lay his head" and traveled around mooching off of his followers. | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised.",
">\n\nWhy didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty!",
">\n\nJust like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s",
">\n\nWhen you talk to random people on reddit about homelessness you realize that unfortunately when many people say the \"homelessness problem\", they don't mean that there are homeless people, they mean that they have to see homeless people.\nMany people seem perfectly happy with out of sight out of mind when it comes to the homeless.",
">\n\nTypical conversation with a liberal (I'm a socdem) about homelessness:\nLiberal: \"the homelessness epidemic is inhumane. We must help these people.\"\nMe: \"yes, I agree with you 100%. Let's start a fundraiser to convert that old building into a homeless shelter or low income housing, so that-\"\nLiberal: \"ewwwww no, I don't want homeless people here. The property value of my family's house will go down and I don't wanna see a bunch of tweakers at night.\"\nMe: \".......... alright, I'll just do it myself. Sorry for bothering you.\"",
">\n\nHonest question, do you own a home yourself?",
">\n\nI'll answer your question if you tell me why you're asking. Seems like bait/a trap to me.",
">\n\nDude’s gonna pull the “WhY aReN’t YoU hOuSiNg ThEm??!!111",
">\n\nI own a home (well the bank does, but y'know), and I'd fully endorse using a nearby house as a shelter for people experiencing homelessness. Would it potentially lower property values? Maybe, but I don't really care. Would it potentially mean more petty crime in the area? Also maybe yes, but there are things that could be done to counter that, and the whole point is lifting people out of poverty so that crime isn't something they feel they need to resort to. So yeah, bring on the residential shelters!",
">\n\n\"We must solve homelessness by criminalizing it.\"\n\"We must stop abortion by outlawing it.\"\n\"You can't stop gun violence by outlawing guns!\"",
">\n\nDisgusting, inhumane and incredibly immoral. How is walking the earth and poverty a crime?"
] |
>
Matthews 25:41-45 | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised.",
">\n\nWhy didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty!",
">\n\nJust like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s",
">\n\nWhen you talk to random people on reddit about homelessness you realize that unfortunately when many people say the \"homelessness problem\", they don't mean that there are homeless people, they mean that they have to see homeless people.\nMany people seem perfectly happy with out of sight out of mind when it comes to the homeless.",
">\n\nTypical conversation with a liberal (I'm a socdem) about homelessness:\nLiberal: \"the homelessness epidemic is inhumane. We must help these people.\"\nMe: \"yes, I agree with you 100%. Let's start a fundraiser to convert that old building into a homeless shelter or low income housing, so that-\"\nLiberal: \"ewwwww no, I don't want homeless people here. The property value of my family's house will go down and I don't wanna see a bunch of tweakers at night.\"\nMe: \".......... alright, I'll just do it myself. Sorry for bothering you.\"",
">\n\nHonest question, do you own a home yourself?",
">\n\nI'll answer your question if you tell me why you're asking. Seems like bait/a trap to me.",
">\n\nDude’s gonna pull the “WhY aReN’t YoU hOuSiNg ThEm??!!111",
">\n\nI own a home (well the bank does, but y'know), and I'd fully endorse using a nearby house as a shelter for people experiencing homelessness. Would it potentially lower property values? Maybe, but I don't really care. Would it potentially mean more petty crime in the area? Also maybe yes, but there are things that could be done to counter that, and the whole point is lifting people out of poverty so that crime isn't something they feel they need to resort to. So yeah, bring on the residential shelters!",
">\n\n\"We must solve homelessness by criminalizing it.\"\n\"We must stop abortion by outlawing it.\"\n\"You can't stop gun violence by outlawing guns!\"",
">\n\nDisgusting, inhumane and incredibly immoral. How is walking the earth and poverty a crime?",
">\n\n\nHow is walking the earth and poverty a crime?\n\nWhat's even funnier is that these people claim to be Christians, followers of a man who famously had \"no place to lay his head\" and traveled around mooching off of his followers."
] |
>
The pillars of democracy are: robust public education, independent journalism, human rights, equality and justice. Promote the pillars of democracy in your house and amongst your friends. Talk about them, talk about how to re-establish them, how to amplify them. Get involved in every democratic process in your community too. Defend democracy good people - it is under direct attack. Rise up and defend democracy and the United States itself from this fascist Republican attack. | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised.",
">\n\nWhy didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty!",
">\n\nJust like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s",
">\n\nWhen you talk to random people on reddit about homelessness you realize that unfortunately when many people say the \"homelessness problem\", they don't mean that there are homeless people, they mean that they have to see homeless people.\nMany people seem perfectly happy with out of sight out of mind when it comes to the homeless.",
">\n\nTypical conversation with a liberal (I'm a socdem) about homelessness:\nLiberal: \"the homelessness epidemic is inhumane. We must help these people.\"\nMe: \"yes, I agree with you 100%. Let's start a fundraiser to convert that old building into a homeless shelter or low income housing, so that-\"\nLiberal: \"ewwwww no, I don't want homeless people here. The property value of my family's house will go down and I don't wanna see a bunch of tweakers at night.\"\nMe: \".......... alright, I'll just do it myself. Sorry for bothering you.\"",
">\n\nHonest question, do you own a home yourself?",
">\n\nI'll answer your question if you tell me why you're asking. Seems like bait/a trap to me.",
">\n\nDude’s gonna pull the “WhY aReN’t YoU hOuSiNg ThEm??!!111",
">\n\nI own a home (well the bank does, but y'know), and I'd fully endorse using a nearby house as a shelter for people experiencing homelessness. Would it potentially lower property values? Maybe, but I don't really care. Would it potentially mean more petty crime in the area? Also maybe yes, but there are things that could be done to counter that, and the whole point is lifting people out of poverty so that crime isn't something they feel they need to resort to. So yeah, bring on the residential shelters!",
">\n\n\"We must solve homelessness by criminalizing it.\"\n\"We must stop abortion by outlawing it.\"\n\"You can't stop gun violence by outlawing guns!\"",
">\n\nDisgusting, inhumane and incredibly immoral. How is walking the earth and poverty a crime?",
">\n\n\nHow is walking the earth and poverty a crime?\n\nWhat's even funnier is that these people claim to be Christians, followers of a man who famously had \"no place to lay his head\" and traveled around mooching off of his followers.",
">\n\nMatthews 25:41-45"
] |
>
How is the law not fair here? It is equally illegal for both the rich and poor to sleep under a bridge!
/s | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised.",
">\n\nWhy didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty!",
">\n\nJust like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s",
">\n\nWhen you talk to random people on reddit about homelessness you realize that unfortunately when many people say the \"homelessness problem\", they don't mean that there are homeless people, they mean that they have to see homeless people.\nMany people seem perfectly happy with out of sight out of mind when it comes to the homeless.",
">\n\nTypical conversation with a liberal (I'm a socdem) about homelessness:\nLiberal: \"the homelessness epidemic is inhumane. We must help these people.\"\nMe: \"yes, I agree with you 100%. Let's start a fundraiser to convert that old building into a homeless shelter or low income housing, so that-\"\nLiberal: \"ewwwww no, I don't want homeless people here. The property value of my family's house will go down and I don't wanna see a bunch of tweakers at night.\"\nMe: \".......... alright, I'll just do it myself. Sorry for bothering you.\"",
">\n\nHonest question, do you own a home yourself?",
">\n\nI'll answer your question if you tell me why you're asking. Seems like bait/a trap to me.",
">\n\nDude’s gonna pull the “WhY aReN’t YoU hOuSiNg ThEm??!!111",
">\n\nI own a home (well the bank does, but y'know), and I'd fully endorse using a nearby house as a shelter for people experiencing homelessness. Would it potentially lower property values? Maybe, but I don't really care. Would it potentially mean more petty crime in the area? Also maybe yes, but there are things that could be done to counter that, and the whole point is lifting people out of poverty so that crime isn't something they feel they need to resort to. So yeah, bring on the residential shelters!",
">\n\n\"We must solve homelessness by criminalizing it.\"\n\"We must stop abortion by outlawing it.\"\n\"You can't stop gun violence by outlawing guns!\"",
">\n\nDisgusting, inhumane and incredibly immoral. How is walking the earth and poverty a crime?",
">\n\n\nHow is walking the earth and poverty a crime?\n\nWhat's even funnier is that these people claim to be Christians, followers of a man who famously had \"no place to lay his head\" and traveled around mooching off of his followers.",
">\n\nMatthews 25:41-45",
">\n\nThe pillars of democracy are: robust public education, independent journalism, human rights, equality and justice. Promote the pillars of democracy in your house and amongst your friends. Talk about them, talk about how to re-establish them, how to amplify them. Get involved in every democratic process in your community too. Defend democracy good people - it is under direct attack. Rise up and defend democracy and the United States itself from this fascist Republican attack."
] |
>
Something tells me rich people still would never be prosecuted or fined for this lol | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised.",
">\n\nWhy didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty!",
">\n\nJust like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s",
">\n\nWhen you talk to random people on reddit about homelessness you realize that unfortunately when many people say the \"homelessness problem\", they don't mean that there are homeless people, they mean that they have to see homeless people.\nMany people seem perfectly happy with out of sight out of mind when it comes to the homeless.",
">\n\nTypical conversation with a liberal (I'm a socdem) about homelessness:\nLiberal: \"the homelessness epidemic is inhumane. We must help these people.\"\nMe: \"yes, I agree with you 100%. Let's start a fundraiser to convert that old building into a homeless shelter or low income housing, so that-\"\nLiberal: \"ewwwww no, I don't want homeless people here. The property value of my family's house will go down and I don't wanna see a bunch of tweakers at night.\"\nMe: \".......... alright, I'll just do it myself. Sorry for bothering you.\"",
">\n\nHonest question, do you own a home yourself?",
">\n\nI'll answer your question if you tell me why you're asking. Seems like bait/a trap to me.",
">\n\nDude’s gonna pull the “WhY aReN’t YoU hOuSiNg ThEm??!!111",
">\n\nI own a home (well the bank does, but y'know), and I'd fully endorse using a nearby house as a shelter for people experiencing homelessness. Would it potentially lower property values? Maybe, but I don't really care. Would it potentially mean more petty crime in the area? Also maybe yes, but there are things that could be done to counter that, and the whole point is lifting people out of poverty so that crime isn't something they feel they need to resort to. So yeah, bring on the residential shelters!",
">\n\n\"We must solve homelessness by criminalizing it.\"\n\"We must stop abortion by outlawing it.\"\n\"You can't stop gun violence by outlawing guns!\"",
">\n\nDisgusting, inhumane and incredibly immoral. How is walking the earth and poverty a crime?",
">\n\n\nHow is walking the earth and poverty a crime?\n\nWhat's even funnier is that these people claim to be Christians, followers of a man who famously had \"no place to lay his head\" and traveled around mooching off of his followers.",
">\n\nMatthews 25:41-45",
">\n\nThe pillars of democracy are: robust public education, independent journalism, human rights, equality and justice. Promote the pillars of democracy in your house and amongst your friends. Talk about them, talk about how to re-establish them, how to amplify them. Get involved in every democratic process in your community too. Defend democracy good people - it is under direct attack. Rise up and defend democracy and the United States itself from this fascist Republican attack.",
">\n\nHow is the law not fair here? It is equally illegal for both the rich and poor to sleep under a bridge!\n/s"
] |
>
For a party that prides itself on “Christian values” Republicans get off on some really evil shit. | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised.",
">\n\nWhy didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty!",
">\n\nJust like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s",
">\n\nWhen you talk to random people on reddit about homelessness you realize that unfortunately when many people say the \"homelessness problem\", they don't mean that there are homeless people, they mean that they have to see homeless people.\nMany people seem perfectly happy with out of sight out of mind when it comes to the homeless.",
">\n\nTypical conversation with a liberal (I'm a socdem) about homelessness:\nLiberal: \"the homelessness epidemic is inhumane. We must help these people.\"\nMe: \"yes, I agree with you 100%. Let's start a fundraiser to convert that old building into a homeless shelter or low income housing, so that-\"\nLiberal: \"ewwwww no, I don't want homeless people here. The property value of my family's house will go down and I don't wanna see a bunch of tweakers at night.\"\nMe: \".......... alright, I'll just do it myself. Sorry for bothering you.\"",
">\n\nHonest question, do you own a home yourself?",
">\n\nI'll answer your question if you tell me why you're asking. Seems like bait/a trap to me.",
">\n\nDude’s gonna pull the “WhY aReN’t YoU hOuSiNg ThEm??!!111",
">\n\nI own a home (well the bank does, but y'know), and I'd fully endorse using a nearby house as a shelter for people experiencing homelessness. Would it potentially lower property values? Maybe, but I don't really care. Would it potentially mean more petty crime in the area? Also maybe yes, but there are things that could be done to counter that, and the whole point is lifting people out of poverty so that crime isn't something they feel they need to resort to. So yeah, bring on the residential shelters!",
">\n\n\"We must solve homelessness by criminalizing it.\"\n\"We must stop abortion by outlawing it.\"\n\"You can't stop gun violence by outlawing guns!\"",
">\n\nDisgusting, inhumane and incredibly immoral. How is walking the earth and poverty a crime?",
">\n\n\nHow is walking the earth and poverty a crime?\n\nWhat's even funnier is that these people claim to be Christians, followers of a man who famously had \"no place to lay his head\" and traveled around mooching off of his followers.",
">\n\nMatthews 25:41-45",
">\n\nThe pillars of democracy are: robust public education, independent journalism, human rights, equality and justice. Promote the pillars of democracy in your house and amongst your friends. Talk about them, talk about how to re-establish them, how to amplify them. Get involved in every democratic process in your community too. Defend democracy good people - it is under direct attack. Rise up and defend democracy and the United States itself from this fascist Republican attack.",
">\n\nHow is the law not fair here? It is equally illegal for both the rich and poor to sleep under a bridge!\n/s",
">\n\nSomething tells me rich people still would never be prosecuted or fined for this lol"
] |
>
Dems involuntarily committing people isnt much better. It's not just a Blue v Red thing. It's a Rich v Poor thing. | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised.",
">\n\nWhy didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty!",
">\n\nJust like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s",
">\n\nWhen you talk to random people on reddit about homelessness you realize that unfortunately when many people say the \"homelessness problem\", they don't mean that there are homeless people, they mean that they have to see homeless people.\nMany people seem perfectly happy with out of sight out of mind when it comes to the homeless.",
">\n\nTypical conversation with a liberal (I'm a socdem) about homelessness:\nLiberal: \"the homelessness epidemic is inhumane. We must help these people.\"\nMe: \"yes, I agree with you 100%. Let's start a fundraiser to convert that old building into a homeless shelter or low income housing, so that-\"\nLiberal: \"ewwwww no, I don't want homeless people here. The property value of my family's house will go down and I don't wanna see a bunch of tweakers at night.\"\nMe: \".......... alright, I'll just do it myself. Sorry for bothering you.\"",
">\n\nHonest question, do you own a home yourself?",
">\n\nI'll answer your question if you tell me why you're asking. Seems like bait/a trap to me.",
">\n\nDude’s gonna pull the “WhY aReN’t YoU hOuSiNg ThEm??!!111",
">\n\nI own a home (well the bank does, but y'know), and I'd fully endorse using a nearby house as a shelter for people experiencing homelessness. Would it potentially lower property values? Maybe, but I don't really care. Would it potentially mean more petty crime in the area? Also maybe yes, but there are things that could be done to counter that, and the whole point is lifting people out of poverty so that crime isn't something they feel they need to resort to. So yeah, bring on the residential shelters!",
">\n\n\"We must solve homelessness by criminalizing it.\"\n\"We must stop abortion by outlawing it.\"\n\"You can't stop gun violence by outlawing guns!\"",
">\n\nDisgusting, inhumane and incredibly immoral. How is walking the earth and poverty a crime?",
">\n\n\nHow is walking the earth and poverty a crime?\n\nWhat's even funnier is that these people claim to be Christians, followers of a man who famously had \"no place to lay his head\" and traveled around mooching off of his followers.",
">\n\nMatthews 25:41-45",
">\n\nThe pillars of democracy are: robust public education, independent journalism, human rights, equality and justice. Promote the pillars of democracy in your house and amongst your friends. Talk about them, talk about how to re-establish them, how to amplify them. Get involved in every democratic process in your community too. Defend democracy good people - it is under direct attack. Rise up and defend democracy and the United States itself from this fascist Republican attack.",
">\n\nHow is the law not fair here? It is equally illegal for both the rich and poor to sleep under a bridge!\n/s",
">\n\nSomething tells me rich people still would never be prosecuted or fined for this lol",
">\n\nFor a party that prides itself on “Christian values” Republicans get off on some really evil shit."
] |
>
Ok but that's Eric Adams, he's a cop and a conservative, he's abnormal for Democrats. | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised.",
">\n\nWhy didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty!",
">\n\nJust like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s",
">\n\nWhen you talk to random people on reddit about homelessness you realize that unfortunately when many people say the \"homelessness problem\", they don't mean that there are homeless people, they mean that they have to see homeless people.\nMany people seem perfectly happy with out of sight out of mind when it comes to the homeless.",
">\n\nTypical conversation with a liberal (I'm a socdem) about homelessness:\nLiberal: \"the homelessness epidemic is inhumane. We must help these people.\"\nMe: \"yes, I agree with you 100%. Let's start a fundraiser to convert that old building into a homeless shelter or low income housing, so that-\"\nLiberal: \"ewwwww no, I don't want homeless people here. The property value of my family's house will go down and I don't wanna see a bunch of tweakers at night.\"\nMe: \".......... alright, I'll just do it myself. Sorry for bothering you.\"",
">\n\nHonest question, do you own a home yourself?",
">\n\nI'll answer your question if you tell me why you're asking. Seems like bait/a trap to me.",
">\n\nDude’s gonna pull the “WhY aReN’t YoU hOuSiNg ThEm??!!111",
">\n\nI own a home (well the bank does, but y'know), and I'd fully endorse using a nearby house as a shelter for people experiencing homelessness. Would it potentially lower property values? Maybe, but I don't really care. Would it potentially mean more petty crime in the area? Also maybe yes, but there are things that could be done to counter that, and the whole point is lifting people out of poverty so that crime isn't something they feel they need to resort to. So yeah, bring on the residential shelters!",
">\n\n\"We must solve homelessness by criminalizing it.\"\n\"We must stop abortion by outlawing it.\"\n\"You can't stop gun violence by outlawing guns!\"",
">\n\nDisgusting, inhumane and incredibly immoral. How is walking the earth and poverty a crime?",
">\n\n\nHow is walking the earth and poverty a crime?\n\nWhat's even funnier is that these people claim to be Christians, followers of a man who famously had \"no place to lay his head\" and traveled around mooching off of his followers.",
">\n\nMatthews 25:41-45",
">\n\nThe pillars of democracy are: robust public education, independent journalism, human rights, equality and justice. Promote the pillars of democracy in your house and amongst your friends. Talk about them, talk about how to re-establish them, how to amplify them. Get involved in every democratic process in your community too. Defend democracy good people - it is under direct attack. Rise up and defend democracy and the United States itself from this fascist Republican attack.",
">\n\nHow is the law not fair here? It is equally illegal for both the rich and poor to sleep under a bridge!\n/s",
">\n\nSomething tells me rich people still would never be prosecuted or fined for this lol",
">\n\nFor a party that prides itself on “Christian values” Republicans get off on some really evil shit.",
">\n\nDems involuntarily committing people isnt much better. It's not just a Blue v Red thing. It's a Rich v Poor thing."
] |
>
Gavin Newsome isnt (supposedly) conservative. Neither is Portland, where forced hospitalization of the homeless is also happening.
And really, if he was abnormal, wed see the really blue places creating homes for the homeless. Please god tell me you have proof that I’m wrong though. I would happily be wrong about this. | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised.",
">\n\nWhy didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty!",
">\n\nJust like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s",
">\n\nWhen you talk to random people on reddit about homelessness you realize that unfortunately when many people say the \"homelessness problem\", they don't mean that there are homeless people, they mean that they have to see homeless people.\nMany people seem perfectly happy with out of sight out of mind when it comes to the homeless.",
">\n\nTypical conversation with a liberal (I'm a socdem) about homelessness:\nLiberal: \"the homelessness epidemic is inhumane. We must help these people.\"\nMe: \"yes, I agree with you 100%. Let's start a fundraiser to convert that old building into a homeless shelter or low income housing, so that-\"\nLiberal: \"ewwwww no, I don't want homeless people here. The property value of my family's house will go down and I don't wanna see a bunch of tweakers at night.\"\nMe: \".......... alright, I'll just do it myself. Sorry for bothering you.\"",
">\n\nHonest question, do you own a home yourself?",
">\n\nI'll answer your question if you tell me why you're asking. Seems like bait/a trap to me.",
">\n\nDude’s gonna pull the “WhY aReN’t YoU hOuSiNg ThEm??!!111",
">\n\nI own a home (well the bank does, but y'know), and I'd fully endorse using a nearby house as a shelter for people experiencing homelessness. Would it potentially lower property values? Maybe, but I don't really care. Would it potentially mean more petty crime in the area? Also maybe yes, but there are things that could be done to counter that, and the whole point is lifting people out of poverty so that crime isn't something they feel they need to resort to. So yeah, bring on the residential shelters!",
">\n\n\"We must solve homelessness by criminalizing it.\"\n\"We must stop abortion by outlawing it.\"\n\"You can't stop gun violence by outlawing guns!\"",
">\n\nDisgusting, inhumane and incredibly immoral. How is walking the earth and poverty a crime?",
">\n\n\nHow is walking the earth and poverty a crime?\n\nWhat's even funnier is that these people claim to be Christians, followers of a man who famously had \"no place to lay his head\" and traveled around mooching off of his followers.",
">\n\nMatthews 25:41-45",
">\n\nThe pillars of democracy are: robust public education, independent journalism, human rights, equality and justice. Promote the pillars of democracy in your house and amongst your friends. Talk about them, talk about how to re-establish them, how to amplify them. Get involved in every democratic process in your community too. Defend democracy good people - it is under direct attack. Rise up and defend democracy and the United States itself from this fascist Republican attack.",
">\n\nHow is the law not fair here? It is equally illegal for both the rich and poor to sleep under a bridge!\n/s",
">\n\nSomething tells me rich people still would never be prosecuted or fined for this lol",
">\n\nFor a party that prides itself on “Christian values” Republicans get off on some really evil shit.",
">\n\nDems involuntarily committing people isnt much better. It's not just a Blue v Red thing. It's a Rich v Poor thing.",
">\n\nOk but that's Eric Adams, he's a cop and a conservative, he's abnormal for Democrats."
] |
>
Ok I'll grant you that, but I would hope that these jurisdictions and leaders would not follow that particularly reprehensible lead. | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised.",
">\n\nWhy didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty!",
">\n\nJust like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s",
">\n\nWhen you talk to random people on reddit about homelessness you realize that unfortunately when many people say the \"homelessness problem\", they don't mean that there are homeless people, they mean that they have to see homeless people.\nMany people seem perfectly happy with out of sight out of mind when it comes to the homeless.",
">\n\nTypical conversation with a liberal (I'm a socdem) about homelessness:\nLiberal: \"the homelessness epidemic is inhumane. We must help these people.\"\nMe: \"yes, I agree with you 100%. Let's start a fundraiser to convert that old building into a homeless shelter or low income housing, so that-\"\nLiberal: \"ewwwww no, I don't want homeless people here. The property value of my family's house will go down and I don't wanna see a bunch of tweakers at night.\"\nMe: \".......... alright, I'll just do it myself. Sorry for bothering you.\"",
">\n\nHonest question, do you own a home yourself?",
">\n\nI'll answer your question if you tell me why you're asking. Seems like bait/a trap to me.",
">\n\nDude’s gonna pull the “WhY aReN’t YoU hOuSiNg ThEm??!!111",
">\n\nI own a home (well the bank does, but y'know), and I'd fully endorse using a nearby house as a shelter for people experiencing homelessness. Would it potentially lower property values? Maybe, but I don't really care. Would it potentially mean more petty crime in the area? Also maybe yes, but there are things that could be done to counter that, and the whole point is lifting people out of poverty so that crime isn't something they feel they need to resort to. So yeah, bring on the residential shelters!",
">\n\n\"We must solve homelessness by criminalizing it.\"\n\"We must stop abortion by outlawing it.\"\n\"You can't stop gun violence by outlawing guns!\"",
">\n\nDisgusting, inhumane and incredibly immoral. How is walking the earth and poverty a crime?",
">\n\n\nHow is walking the earth and poverty a crime?\n\nWhat's even funnier is that these people claim to be Christians, followers of a man who famously had \"no place to lay his head\" and traveled around mooching off of his followers.",
">\n\nMatthews 25:41-45",
">\n\nThe pillars of democracy are: robust public education, independent journalism, human rights, equality and justice. Promote the pillars of democracy in your house and amongst your friends. Talk about them, talk about how to re-establish them, how to amplify them. Get involved in every democratic process in your community too. Defend democracy good people - it is under direct attack. Rise up and defend democracy and the United States itself from this fascist Republican attack.",
">\n\nHow is the law not fair here? It is equally illegal for both the rich and poor to sleep under a bridge!\n/s",
">\n\nSomething tells me rich people still would never be prosecuted or fined for this lol",
">\n\nFor a party that prides itself on “Christian values” Republicans get off on some really evil shit.",
">\n\nDems involuntarily committing people isnt much better. It's not just a Blue v Red thing. It's a Rich v Poor thing.",
">\n\nOk but that's Eric Adams, he's a cop and a conservative, he's abnormal for Democrats.",
">\n\nGavin Newsome isnt (supposedly) conservative. Neither is Portland, where forced hospitalization of the homeless is also happening.\nAnd really, if he was abnormal, wed see the really blue places creating homes for the homeless. Please god tell me you have proof that I’m wrong though. I would happily be wrong about this."
] |
>
Why does “We need to get the homeless off the streets.” always sound so progressive in Europe and sinister in the US? | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised.",
">\n\nWhy didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty!",
">\n\nJust like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s",
">\n\nWhen you talk to random people on reddit about homelessness you realize that unfortunately when many people say the \"homelessness problem\", they don't mean that there are homeless people, they mean that they have to see homeless people.\nMany people seem perfectly happy with out of sight out of mind when it comes to the homeless.",
">\n\nTypical conversation with a liberal (I'm a socdem) about homelessness:\nLiberal: \"the homelessness epidemic is inhumane. We must help these people.\"\nMe: \"yes, I agree with you 100%. Let's start a fundraiser to convert that old building into a homeless shelter or low income housing, so that-\"\nLiberal: \"ewwwww no, I don't want homeless people here. The property value of my family's house will go down and I don't wanna see a bunch of tweakers at night.\"\nMe: \".......... alright, I'll just do it myself. Sorry for bothering you.\"",
">\n\nHonest question, do you own a home yourself?",
">\n\nI'll answer your question if you tell me why you're asking. Seems like bait/a trap to me.",
">\n\nDude’s gonna pull the “WhY aReN’t YoU hOuSiNg ThEm??!!111",
">\n\nI own a home (well the bank does, but y'know), and I'd fully endorse using a nearby house as a shelter for people experiencing homelessness. Would it potentially lower property values? Maybe, but I don't really care. Would it potentially mean more petty crime in the area? Also maybe yes, but there are things that could be done to counter that, and the whole point is lifting people out of poverty so that crime isn't something they feel they need to resort to. So yeah, bring on the residential shelters!",
">\n\n\"We must solve homelessness by criminalizing it.\"\n\"We must stop abortion by outlawing it.\"\n\"You can't stop gun violence by outlawing guns!\"",
">\n\nDisgusting, inhumane and incredibly immoral. How is walking the earth and poverty a crime?",
">\n\n\nHow is walking the earth and poverty a crime?\n\nWhat's even funnier is that these people claim to be Christians, followers of a man who famously had \"no place to lay his head\" and traveled around mooching off of his followers.",
">\n\nMatthews 25:41-45",
">\n\nThe pillars of democracy are: robust public education, independent journalism, human rights, equality and justice. Promote the pillars of democracy in your house and amongst your friends. Talk about them, talk about how to re-establish them, how to amplify them. Get involved in every democratic process in your community too. Defend democracy good people - it is under direct attack. Rise up and defend democracy and the United States itself from this fascist Republican attack.",
">\n\nHow is the law not fair here? It is equally illegal for both the rich and poor to sleep under a bridge!\n/s",
">\n\nSomething tells me rich people still would never be prosecuted or fined for this lol",
">\n\nFor a party that prides itself on “Christian values” Republicans get off on some really evil shit.",
">\n\nDems involuntarily committing people isnt much better. It's not just a Blue v Red thing. It's a Rich v Poor thing.",
">\n\nOk but that's Eric Adams, he's a cop and a conservative, he's abnormal for Democrats.",
">\n\nGavin Newsome isnt (supposedly) conservative. Neither is Portland, where forced hospitalization of the homeless is also happening.\nAnd really, if he was abnormal, wed see the really blue places creating homes for the homeless. Please god tell me you have proof that I’m wrong though. I would happily be wrong about this.",
">\n\nOk I'll grant you that, but I would hope that these jurisdictions and leaders would not follow that particularly reprehensible lead."
] |
>
In the US it often means just put them in prison instead of shoving them in cramped shelters | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised.",
">\n\nWhy didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty!",
">\n\nJust like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s",
">\n\nWhen you talk to random people on reddit about homelessness you realize that unfortunately when many people say the \"homelessness problem\", they don't mean that there are homeless people, they mean that they have to see homeless people.\nMany people seem perfectly happy with out of sight out of mind when it comes to the homeless.",
">\n\nTypical conversation with a liberal (I'm a socdem) about homelessness:\nLiberal: \"the homelessness epidemic is inhumane. We must help these people.\"\nMe: \"yes, I agree with you 100%. Let's start a fundraiser to convert that old building into a homeless shelter or low income housing, so that-\"\nLiberal: \"ewwwww no, I don't want homeless people here. The property value of my family's house will go down and I don't wanna see a bunch of tweakers at night.\"\nMe: \".......... alright, I'll just do it myself. Sorry for bothering you.\"",
">\n\nHonest question, do you own a home yourself?",
">\n\nI'll answer your question if you tell me why you're asking. Seems like bait/a trap to me.",
">\n\nDude’s gonna pull the “WhY aReN’t YoU hOuSiNg ThEm??!!111",
">\n\nI own a home (well the bank does, but y'know), and I'd fully endorse using a nearby house as a shelter for people experiencing homelessness. Would it potentially lower property values? Maybe, but I don't really care. Would it potentially mean more petty crime in the area? Also maybe yes, but there are things that could be done to counter that, and the whole point is lifting people out of poverty so that crime isn't something they feel they need to resort to. So yeah, bring on the residential shelters!",
">\n\n\"We must solve homelessness by criminalizing it.\"\n\"We must stop abortion by outlawing it.\"\n\"You can't stop gun violence by outlawing guns!\"",
">\n\nDisgusting, inhumane and incredibly immoral. How is walking the earth and poverty a crime?",
">\n\n\nHow is walking the earth and poverty a crime?\n\nWhat's even funnier is that these people claim to be Christians, followers of a man who famously had \"no place to lay his head\" and traveled around mooching off of his followers.",
">\n\nMatthews 25:41-45",
">\n\nThe pillars of democracy are: robust public education, independent journalism, human rights, equality and justice. Promote the pillars of democracy in your house and amongst your friends. Talk about them, talk about how to re-establish them, how to amplify them. Get involved in every democratic process in your community too. Defend democracy good people - it is under direct attack. Rise up and defend democracy and the United States itself from this fascist Republican attack.",
">\n\nHow is the law not fair here? It is equally illegal for both the rich and poor to sleep under a bridge!\n/s",
">\n\nSomething tells me rich people still would never be prosecuted or fined for this lol",
">\n\nFor a party that prides itself on “Christian values” Republicans get off on some really evil shit.",
">\n\nDems involuntarily committing people isnt much better. It's not just a Blue v Red thing. It's a Rich v Poor thing.",
">\n\nOk but that's Eric Adams, he's a cop and a conservative, he's abnormal for Democrats.",
">\n\nGavin Newsome isnt (supposedly) conservative. Neither is Portland, where forced hospitalization of the homeless is also happening.\nAnd really, if he was abnormal, wed see the really blue places creating homes for the homeless. Please god tell me you have proof that I’m wrong though. I would happily be wrong about this.",
">\n\nOk I'll grant you that, but I would hope that these jurisdictions and leaders would not follow that particularly reprehensible lead.",
">\n\nWhy does “We need to get the homeless off the streets.” always sound so progressive in Europe and sinister in the US?"
] |
>
Capitalism can never solve homelessness, bc they dont make enough money from it. Hence why CA, NY, and WA continue to struggle with it, while places like Missouri make it even worse. There are no pro-homeless states in the US. | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised.",
">\n\nWhy didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty!",
">\n\nJust like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s",
">\n\nWhen you talk to random people on reddit about homelessness you realize that unfortunately when many people say the \"homelessness problem\", they don't mean that there are homeless people, they mean that they have to see homeless people.\nMany people seem perfectly happy with out of sight out of mind when it comes to the homeless.",
">\n\nTypical conversation with a liberal (I'm a socdem) about homelessness:\nLiberal: \"the homelessness epidemic is inhumane. We must help these people.\"\nMe: \"yes, I agree with you 100%. Let's start a fundraiser to convert that old building into a homeless shelter or low income housing, so that-\"\nLiberal: \"ewwwww no, I don't want homeless people here. The property value of my family's house will go down and I don't wanna see a bunch of tweakers at night.\"\nMe: \".......... alright, I'll just do it myself. Sorry for bothering you.\"",
">\n\nHonest question, do you own a home yourself?",
">\n\nI'll answer your question if you tell me why you're asking. Seems like bait/a trap to me.",
">\n\nDude’s gonna pull the “WhY aReN’t YoU hOuSiNg ThEm??!!111",
">\n\nI own a home (well the bank does, but y'know), and I'd fully endorse using a nearby house as a shelter for people experiencing homelessness. Would it potentially lower property values? Maybe, but I don't really care. Would it potentially mean more petty crime in the area? Also maybe yes, but there are things that could be done to counter that, and the whole point is lifting people out of poverty so that crime isn't something they feel they need to resort to. So yeah, bring on the residential shelters!",
">\n\n\"We must solve homelessness by criminalizing it.\"\n\"We must stop abortion by outlawing it.\"\n\"You can't stop gun violence by outlawing guns!\"",
">\n\nDisgusting, inhumane and incredibly immoral. How is walking the earth and poverty a crime?",
">\n\n\nHow is walking the earth and poverty a crime?\n\nWhat's even funnier is that these people claim to be Christians, followers of a man who famously had \"no place to lay his head\" and traveled around mooching off of his followers.",
">\n\nMatthews 25:41-45",
">\n\nThe pillars of democracy are: robust public education, independent journalism, human rights, equality and justice. Promote the pillars of democracy in your house and amongst your friends. Talk about them, talk about how to re-establish them, how to amplify them. Get involved in every democratic process in your community too. Defend democracy good people - it is under direct attack. Rise up and defend democracy and the United States itself from this fascist Republican attack.",
">\n\nHow is the law not fair here? It is equally illegal for both the rich and poor to sleep under a bridge!\n/s",
">\n\nSomething tells me rich people still would never be prosecuted or fined for this lol",
">\n\nFor a party that prides itself on “Christian values” Republicans get off on some really evil shit.",
">\n\nDems involuntarily committing people isnt much better. It's not just a Blue v Red thing. It's a Rich v Poor thing.",
">\n\nOk but that's Eric Adams, he's a cop and a conservative, he's abnormal for Democrats.",
">\n\nGavin Newsome isnt (supposedly) conservative. Neither is Portland, where forced hospitalization of the homeless is also happening.\nAnd really, if he was abnormal, wed see the really blue places creating homes for the homeless. Please god tell me you have proof that I’m wrong though. I would happily be wrong about this.",
">\n\nOk I'll grant you that, but I would hope that these jurisdictions and leaders would not follow that particularly reprehensible lead.",
">\n\nWhy does “We need to get the homeless off the streets.” always sound so progressive in Europe and sinister in the US?",
">\n\nIn the US it often means just put them in prison instead of shoving them in cramped shelters"
] |
>
They make a shitload of money off of it lol. Homeless shelters get paid for every bed they have filled. I used to work at a shelter and they’d let dudes stay who were clearly breaking rules or a danger to others because if they have unfilled beds they don’t receive as much money from the government. The entire game is keeping the shelter full, taking the money they give per person (let’s say the budget calls for 200 bucks of resources per resident) they do anything and everything to supply the lowest acceptable level of resources allowed, at as far under that 200 dollar limit as they can. Then they keep the excess money. | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised.",
">\n\nWhy didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty!",
">\n\nJust like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s",
">\n\nWhen you talk to random people on reddit about homelessness you realize that unfortunately when many people say the \"homelessness problem\", they don't mean that there are homeless people, they mean that they have to see homeless people.\nMany people seem perfectly happy with out of sight out of mind when it comes to the homeless.",
">\n\nTypical conversation with a liberal (I'm a socdem) about homelessness:\nLiberal: \"the homelessness epidemic is inhumane. We must help these people.\"\nMe: \"yes, I agree with you 100%. Let's start a fundraiser to convert that old building into a homeless shelter or low income housing, so that-\"\nLiberal: \"ewwwww no, I don't want homeless people here. The property value of my family's house will go down and I don't wanna see a bunch of tweakers at night.\"\nMe: \".......... alright, I'll just do it myself. Sorry for bothering you.\"",
">\n\nHonest question, do you own a home yourself?",
">\n\nI'll answer your question if you tell me why you're asking. Seems like bait/a trap to me.",
">\n\nDude’s gonna pull the “WhY aReN’t YoU hOuSiNg ThEm??!!111",
">\n\nI own a home (well the bank does, but y'know), and I'd fully endorse using a nearby house as a shelter for people experiencing homelessness. Would it potentially lower property values? Maybe, but I don't really care. Would it potentially mean more petty crime in the area? Also maybe yes, but there are things that could be done to counter that, and the whole point is lifting people out of poverty so that crime isn't something they feel they need to resort to. So yeah, bring on the residential shelters!",
">\n\n\"We must solve homelessness by criminalizing it.\"\n\"We must stop abortion by outlawing it.\"\n\"You can't stop gun violence by outlawing guns!\"",
">\n\nDisgusting, inhumane and incredibly immoral. How is walking the earth and poverty a crime?",
">\n\n\nHow is walking the earth and poverty a crime?\n\nWhat's even funnier is that these people claim to be Christians, followers of a man who famously had \"no place to lay his head\" and traveled around mooching off of his followers.",
">\n\nMatthews 25:41-45",
">\n\nThe pillars of democracy are: robust public education, independent journalism, human rights, equality and justice. Promote the pillars of democracy in your house and amongst your friends. Talk about them, talk about how to re-establish them, how to amplify them. Get involved in every democratic process in your community too. Defend democracy good people - it is under direct attack. Rise up and defend democracy and the United States itself from this fascist Republican attack.",
">\n\nHow is the law not fair here? It is equally illegal for both the rich and poor to sleep under a bridge!\n/s",
">\n\nSomething tells me rich people still would never be prosecuted or fined for this lol",
">\n\nFor a party that prides itself on “Christian values” Republicans get off on some really evil shit.",
">\n\nDems involuntarily committing people isnt much better. It's not just a Blue v Red thing. It's a Rich v Poor thing.",
">\n\nOk but that's Eric Adams, he's a cop and a conservative, he's abnormal for Democrats.",
">\n\nGavin Newsome isnt (supposedly) conservative. Neither is Portland, where forced hospitalization of the homeless is also happening.\nAnd really, if he was abnormal, wed see the really blue places creating homes for the homeless. Please god tell me you have proof that I’m wrong though. I would happily be wrong about this.",
">\n\nOk I'll grant you that, but I would hope that these jurisdictions and leaders would not follow that particularly reprehensible lead.",
">\n\nWhy does “We need to get the homeless off the streets.” always sound so progressive in Europe and sinister in the US?",
">\n\nIn the US it often means just put them in prison instead of shoving them in cramped shelters",
">\n\nCapitalism can never solve homelessness, bc they dont make enough money from it. Hence why CA, NY, and WA continue to struggle with it, while places like Missouri make it even worse. There are no pro-homeless states in the US."
] |
>
Shelters aren’t solving homelessness. But good point on how most of our systems designed to help people are still just money making systems at the end of the day. | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised.",
">\n\nWhy didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty!",
">\n\nJust like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s",
">\n\nWhen you talk to random people on reddit about homelessness you realize that unfortunately when many people say the \"homelessness problem\", they don't mean that there are homeless people, they mean that they have to see homeless people.\nMany people seem perfectly happy with out of sight out of mind when it comes to the homeless.",
">\n\nTypical conversation with a liberal (I'm a socdem) about homelessness:\nLiberal: \"the homelessness epidemic is inhumane. We must help these people.\"\nMe: \"yes, I agree with you 100%. Let's start a fundraiser to convert that old building into a homeless shelter or low income housing, so that-\"\nLiberal: \"ewwwww no, I don't want homeless people here. The property value of my family's house will go down and I don't wanna see a bunch of tweakers at night.\"\nMe: \".......... alright, I'll just do it myself. Sorry for bothering you.\"",
">\n\nHonest question, do you own a home yourself?",
">\n\nI'll answer your question if you tell me why you're asking. Seems like bait/a trap to me.",
">\n\nDude’s gonna pull the “WhY aReN’t YoU hOuSiNg ThEm??!!111",
">\n\nI own a home (well the bank does, but y'know), and I'd fully endorse using a nearby house as a shelter for people experiencing homelessness. Would it potentially lower property values? Maybe, but I don't really care. Would it potentially mean more petty crime in the area? Also maybe yes, but there are things that could be done to counter that, and the whole point is lifting people out of poverty so that crime isn't something they feel they need to resort to. So yeah, bring on the residential shelters!",
">\n\n\"We must solve homelessness by criminalizing it.\"\n\"We must stop abortion by outlawing it.\"\n\"You can't stop gun violence by outlawing guns!\"",
">\n\nDisgusting, inhumane and incredibly immoral. How is walking the earth and poverty a crime?",
">\n\n\nHow is walking the earth and poverty a crime?\n\nWhat's even funnier is that these people claim to be Christians, followers of a man who famously had \"no place to lay his head\" and traveled around mooching off of his followers.",
">\n\nMatthews 25:41-45",
">\n\nThe pillars of democracy are: robust public education, independent journalism, human rights, equality and justice. Promote the pillars of democracy in your house and amongst your friends. Talk about them, talk about how to re-establish them, how to amplify them. Get involved in every democratic process in your community too. Defend democracy good people - it is under direct attack. Rise up and defend democracy and the United States itself from this fascist Republican attack.",
">\n\nHow is the law not fair here? It is equally illegal for both the rich and poor to sleep under a bridge!\n/s",
">\n\nSomething tells me rich people still would never be prosecuted or fined for this lol",
">\n\nFor a party that prides itself on “Christian values” Republicans get off on some really evil shit.",
">\n\nDems involuntarily committing people isnt much better. It's not just a Blue v Red thing. It's a Rich v Poor thing.",
">\n\nOk but that's Eric Adams, he's a cop and a conservative, he's abnormal for Democrats.",
">\n\nGavin Newsome isnt (supposedly) conservative. Neither is Portland, where forced hospitalization of the homeless is also happening.\nAnd really, if he was abnormal, wed see the really blue places creating homes for the homeless. Please god tell me you have proof that I’m wrong though. I would happily be wrong about this.",
">\n\nOk I'll grant you that, but I would hope that these jurisdictions and leaders would not follow that particularly reprehensible lead.",
">\n\nWhy does “We need to get the homeless off the streets.” always sound so progressive in Europe and sinister in the US?",
">\n\nIn the US it often means just put them in prison instead of shoving them in cramped shelters",
">\n\nCapitalism can never solve homelessness, bc they dont make enough money from it. Hence why CA, NY, and WA continue to struggle with it, while places like Missouri make it even worse. There are no pro-homeless states in the US.",
">\n\nThey make a shitload of money off of it lol. Homeless shelters get paid for every bed they have filled. I used to work at a shelter and they’d let dudes stay who were clearly breaking rules or a danger to others because if they have unfilled beds they don’t receive as much money from the government. The entire game is keeping the shelter full, taking the money they give per person (let’s say the budget calls for 200 bucks of resources per resident) they do anything and everything to supply the lowest acceptable level of resources allowed, at as far under that 200 dollar limit as they can. Then they keep the excess money."
] |
>
Spoiler alert, you can’t solve homelessness unless you can somehow force people to not be mentally ill or drug addicted. At the end of the day it has to start with the homeless person. No amount of forcing someone to do x y or z will solve this | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised.",
">\n\nWhy didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty!",
">\n\nJust like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s",
">\n\nWhen you talk to random people on reddit about homelessness you realize that unfortunately when many people say the \"homelessness problem\", they don't mean that there are homeless people, they mean that they have to see homeless people.\nMany people seem perfectly happy with out of sight out of mind when it comes to the homeless.",
">\n\nTypical conversation with a liberal (I'm a socdem) about homelessness:\nLiberal: \"the homelessness epidemic is inhumane. We must help these people.\"\nMe: \"yes, I agree with you 100%. Let's start a fundraiser to convert that old building into a homeless shelter or low income housing, so that-\"\nLiberal: \"ewwwww no, I don't want homeless people here. The property value of my family's house will go down and I don't wanna see a bunch of tweakers at night.\"\nMe: \".......... alright, I'll just do it myself. Sorry for bothering you.\"",
">\n\nHonest question, do you own a home yourself?",
">\n\nI'll answer your question if you tell me why you're asking. Seems like bait/a trap to me.",
">\n\nDude’s gonna pull the “WhY aReN’t YoU hOuSiNg ThEm??!!111",
">\n\nI own a home (well the bank does, but y'know), and I'd fully endorse using a nearby house as a shelter for people experiencing homelessness. Would it potentially lower property values? Maybe, but I don't really care. Would it potentially mean more petty crime in the area? Also maybe yes, but there are things that could be done to counter that, and the whole point is lifting people out of poverty so that crime isn't something they feel they need to resort to. So yeah, bring on the residential shelters!",
">\n\n\"We must solve homelessness by criminalizing it.\"\n\"We must stop abortion by outlawing it.\"\n\"You can't stop gun violence by outlawing guns!\"",
">\n\nDisgusting, inhumane and incredibly immoral. How is walking the earth and poverty a crime?",
">\n\n\nHow is walking the earth and poverty a crime?\n\nWhat's even funnier is that these people claim to be Christians, followers of a man who famously had \"no place to lay his head\" and traveled around mooching off of his followers.",
">\n\nMatthews 25:41-45",
">\n\nThe pillars of democracy are: robust public education, independent journalism, human rights, equality and justice. Promote the pillars of democracy in your house and amongst your friends. Talk about them, talk about how to re-establish them, how to amplify them. Get involved in every democratic process in your community too. Defend democracy good people - it is under direct attack. Rise up and defend democracy and the United States itself from this fascist Republican attack.",
">\n\nHow is the law not fair here? It is equally illegal for both the rich and poor to sleep under a bridge!\n/s",
">\n\nSomething tells me rich people still would never be prosecuted or fined for this lol",
">\n\nFor a party that prides itself on “Christian values” Republicans get off on some really evil shit.",
">\n\nDems involuntarily committing people isnt much better. It's not just a Blue v Red thing. It's a Rich v Poor thing.",
">\n\nOk but that's Eric Adams, he's a cop and a conservative, he's abnormal for Democrats.",
">\n\nGavin Newsome isnt (supposedly) conservative. Neither is Portland, where forced hospitalization of the homeless is also happening.\nAnd really, if he was abnormal, wed see the really blue places creating homes for the homeless. Please god tell me you have proof that I’m wrong though. I would happily be wrong about this.",
">\n\nOk I'll grant you that, but I would hope that these jurisdictions and leaders would not follow that particularly reprehensible lead.",
">\n\nWhy does “We need to get the homeless off the streets.” always sound so progressive in Europe and sinister in the US?",
">\n\nIn the US it often means just put them in prison instead of shoving them in cramped shelters",
">\n\nCapitalism can never solve homelessness, bc they dont make enough money from it. Hence why CA, NY, and WA continue to struggle with it, while places like Missouri make it even worse. There are no pro-homeless states in the US.",
">\n\nThey make a shitload of money off of it lol. Homeless shelters get paid for every bed they have filled. I used to work at a shelter and they’d let dudes stay who were clearly breaking rules or a danger to others because if they have unfilled beds they don’t receive as much money from the government. The entire game is keeping the shelter full, taking the money they give per person (let’s say the budget calls for 200 bucks of resources per resident) they do anything and everything to supply the lowest acceptable level of resources allowed, at as far under that 200 dollar limit as they can. Then they keep the excess money.",
">\n\nShelters aren’t solving homelessness. But good point on how most of our systems designed to help people are still just money making systems at the end of the day."
] |
>
Crimes committed against the homeless are already largely ignored. It’s only a matter of time before being homeless becomes grounds for sanctioned murder, like it’s fucking pest control. | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised.",
">\n\nWhy didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty!",
">\n\nJust like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s",
">\n\nWhen you talk to random people on reddit about homelessness you realize that unfortunately when many people say the \"homelessness problem\", they don't mean that there are homeless people, they mean that they have to see homeless people.\nMany people seem perfectly happy with out of sight out of mind when it comes to the homeless.",
">\n\nTypical conversation with a liberal (I'm a socdem) about homelessness:\nLiberal: \"the homelessness epidemic is inhumane. We must help these people.\"\nMe: \"yes, I agree with you 100%. Let's start a fundraiser to convert that old building into a homeless shelter or low income housing, so that-\"\nLiberal: \"ewwwww no, I don't want homeless people here. The property value of my family's house will go down and I don't wanna see a bunch of tweakers at night.\"\nMe: \".......... alright, I'll just do it myself. Sorry for bothering you.\"",
">\n\nHonest question, do you own a home yourself?",
">\n\nI'll answer your question if you tell me why you're asking. Seems like bait/a trap to me.",
">\n\nDude’s gonna pull the “WhY aReN’t YoU hOuSiNg ThEm??!!111",
">\n\nI own a home (well the bank does, but y'know), and I'd fully endorse using a nearby house as a shelter for people experiencing homelessness. Would it potentially lower property values? Maybe, but I don't really care. Would it potentially mean more petty crime in the area? Also maybe yes, but there are things that could be done to counter that, and the whole point is lifting people out of poverty so that crime isn't something they feel they need to resort to. So yeah, bring on the residential shelters!",
">\n\n\"We must solve homelessness by criminalizing it.\"\n\"We must stop abortion by outlawing it.\"\n\"You can't stop gun violence by outlawing guns!\"",
">\n\nDisgusting, inhumane and incredibly immoral. How is walking the earth and poverty a crime?",
">\n\n\nHow is walking the earth and poverty a crime?\n\nWhat's even funnier is that these people claim to be Christians, followers of a man who famously had \"no place to lay his head\" and traveled around mooching off of his followers.",
">\n\nMatthews 25:41-45",
">\n\nThe pillars of democracy are: robust public education, independent journalism, human rights, equality and justice. Promote the pillars of democracy in your house and amongst your friends. Talk about them, talk about how to re-establish them, how to amplify them. Get involved in every democratic process in your community too. Defend democracy good people - it is under direct attack. Rise up and defend democracy and the United States itself from this fascist Republican attack.",
">\n\nHow is the law not fair here? It is equally illegal for both the rich and poor to sleep under a bridge!\n/s",
">\n\nSomething tells me rich people still would never be prosecuted or fined for this lol",
">\n\nFor a party that prides itself on “Christian values” Republicans get off on some really evil shit.",
">\n\nDems involuntarily committing people isnt much better. It's not just a Blue v Red thing. It's a Rich v Poor thing.",
">\n\nOk but that's Eric Adams, he's a cop and a conservative, he's abnormal for Democrats.",
">\n\nGavin Newsome isnt (supposedly) conservative. Neither is Portland, where forced hospitalization of the homeless is also happening.\nAnd really, if he was abnormal, wed see the really blue places creating homes for the homeless. Please god tell me you have proof that I’m wrong though. I would happily be wrong about this.",
">\n\nOk I'll grant you that, but I would hope that these jurisdictions and leaders would not follow that particularly reprehensible lead.",
">\n\nWhy does “We need to get the homeless off the streets.” always sound so progressive in Europe and sinister in the US?",
">\n\nIn the US it often means just put them in prison instead of shoving them in cramped shelters",
">\n\nCapitalism can never solve homelessness, bc they dont make enough money from it. Hence why CA, NY, and WA continue to struggle with it, while places like Missouri make it even worse. There are no pro-homeless states in the US.",
">\n\nThey make a shitload of money off of it lol. Homeless shelters get paid for every bed they have filled. I used to work at a shelter and they’d let dudes stay who were clearly breaking rules or a danger to others because if they have unfilled beds they don’t receive as much money from the government. The entire game is keeping the shelter full, taking the money they give per person (let’s say the budget calls for 200 bucks of resources per resident) they do anything and everything to supply the lowest acceptable level of resources allowed, at as far under that 200 dollar limit as they can. Then they keep the excess money.",
">\n\nShelters aren’t solving homelessness. But good point on how most of our systems designed to help people are still just money making systems at the end of the day.",
">\n\nSpoiler alert, you can’t solve homelessness unless you can somehow force people to not be mentally ill or drug addicted. At the end of the day it has to start with the homeless person. No amount of forcing someone to do x y or z will solve this"
] |
>
LMAO I was homeless for a while and it already is.
Lots of unhoused folks particularly women go missing and never show back up. | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised.",
">\n\nWhy didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty!",
">\n\nJust like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s",
">\n\nWhen you talk to random people on reddit about homelessness you realize that unfortunately when many people say the \"homelessness problem\", they don't mean that there are homeless people, they mean that they have to see homeless people.\nMany people seem perfectly happy with out of sight out of mind when it comes to the homeless.",
">\n\nTypical conversation with a liberal (I'm a socdem) about homelessness:\nLiberal: \"the homelessness epidemic is inhumane. We must help these people.\"\nMe: \"yes, I agree with you 100%. Let's start a fundraiser to convert that old building into a homeless shelter or low income housing, so that-\"\nLiberal: \"ewwwww no, I don't want homeless people here. The property value of my family's house will go down and I don't wanna see a bunch of tweakers at night.\"\nMe: \".......... alright, I'll just do it myself. Sorry for bothering you.\"",
">\n\nHonest question, do you own a home yourself?",
">\n\nI'll answer your question if you tell me why you're asking. Seems like bait/a trap to me.",
">\n\nDude’s gonna pull the “WhY aReN’t YoU hOuSiNg ThEm??!!111",
">\n\nI own a home (well the bank does, but y'know), and I'd fully endorse using a nearby house as a shelter for people experiencing homelessness. Would it potentially lower property values? Maybe, but I don't really care. Would it potentially mean more petty crime in the area? Also maybe yes, but there are things that could be done to counter that, and the whole point is lifting people out of poverty so that crime isn't something they feel they need to resort to. So yeah, bring on the residential shelters!",
">\n\n\"We must solve homelessness by criminalizing it.\"\n\"We must stop abortion by outlawing it.\"\n\"You can't stop gun violence by outlawing guns!\"",
">\n\nDisgusting, inhumane and incredibly immoral. How is walking the earth and poverty a crime?",
">\n\n\nHow is walking the earth and poverty a crime?\n\nWhat's even funnier is that these people claim to be Christians, followers of a man who famously had \"no place to lay his head\" and traveled around mooching off of his followers.",
">\n\nMatthews 25:41-45",
">\n\nThe pillars of democracy are: robust public education, independent journalism, human rights, equality and justice. Promote the pillars of democracy in your house and amongst your friends. Talk about them, talk about how to re-establish them, how to amplify them. Get involved in every democratic process in your community too. Defend democracy good people - it is under direct attack. Rise up and defend democracy and the United States itself from this fascist Republican attack.",
">\n\nHow is the law not fair here? It is equally illegal for both the rich and poor to sleep under a bridge!\n/s",
">\n\nSomething tells me rich people still would never be prosecuted or fined for this lol",
">\n\nFor a party that prides itself on “Christian values” Republicans get off on some really evil shit.",
">\n\nDems involuntarily committing people isnt much better. It's not just a Blue v Red thing. It's a Rich v Poor thing.",
">\n\nOk but that's Eric Adams, he's a cop and a conservative, he's abnormal for Democrats.",
">\n\nGavin Newsome isnt (supposedly) conservative. Neither is Portland, where forced hospitalization of the homeless is also happening.\nAnd really, if he was abnormal, wed see the really blue places creating homes for the homeless. Please god tell me you have proof that I’m wrong though. I would happily be wrong about this.",
">\n\nOk I'll grant you that, but I would hope that these jurisdictions and leaders would not follow that particularly reprehensible lead.",
">\n\nWhy does “We need to get the homeless off the streets.” always sound so progressive in Europe and sinister in the US?",
">\n\nIn the US it often means just put them in prison instead of shoving them in cramped shelters",
">\n\nCapitalism can never solve homelessness, bc they dont make enough money from it. Hence why CA, NY, and WA continue to struggle with it, while places like Missouri make it even worse. There are no pro-homeless states in the US.",
">\n\nThey make a shitload of money off of it lol. Homeless shelters get paid for every bed they have filled. I used to work at a shelter and they’d let dudes stay who were clearly breaking rules or a danger to others because if they have unfilled beds they don’t receive as much money from the government. The entire game is keeping the shelter full, taking the money they give per person (let’s say the budget calls for 200 bucks of resources per resident) they do anything and everything to supply the lowest acceptable level of resources allowed, at as far under that 200 dollar limit as they can. Then they keep the excess money.",
">\n\nShelters aren’t solving homelessness. But good point on how most of our systems designed to help people are still just money making systems at the end of the day.",
">\n\nSpoiler alert, you can’t solve homelessness unless you can somehow force people to not be mentally ill or drug addicted. At the end of the day it has to start with the homeless person. No amount of forcing someone to do x y or z will solve this",
">\n\nCrimes committed against the homeless are already largely ignored. It’s only a matter of time before being homeless becomes grounds for sanctioned murder, like it’s fucking pest control."
] |
>
They'll put them in warehouses run by Geo Corp, then bill you, the taxpayer $750 per day for that "service". All of this nonsense, so that America can avoid looking at the reasons why there are so many homeless, and how to get someone back on their feet once homeless. It's dystopian. | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised.",
">\n\nWhy didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty!",
">\n\nJust like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s",
">\n\nWhen you talk to random people on reddit about homelessness you realize that unfortunately when many people say the \"homelessness problem\", they don't mean that there are homeless people, they mean that they have to see homeless people.\nMany people seem perfectly happy with out of sight out of mind when it comes to the homeless.",
">\n\nTypical conversation with a liberal (I'm a socdem) about homelessness:\nLiberal: \"the homelessness epidemic is inhumane. We must help these people.\"\nMe: \"yes, I agree with you 100%. Let's start a fundraiser to convert that old building into a homeless shelter or low income housing, so that-\"\nLiberal: \"ewwwww no, I don't want homeless people here. The property value of my family's house will go down and I don't wanna see a bunch of tweakers at night.\"\nMe: \".......... alright, I'll just do it myself. Sorry for bothering you.\"",
">\n\nHonest question, do you own a home yourself?",
">\n\nI'll answer your question if you tell me why you're asking. Seems like bait/a trap to me.",
">\n\nDude’s gonna pull the “WhY aReN’t YoU hOuSiNg ThEm??!!111",
">\n\nI own a home (well the bank does, but y'know), and I'd fully endorse using a nearby house as a shelter for people experiencing homelessness. Would it potentially lower property values? Maybe, but I don't really care. Would it potentially mean more petty crime in the area? Also maybe yes, but there are things that could be done to counter that, and the whole point is lifting people out of poverty so that crime isn't something they feel they need to resort to. So yeah, bring on the residential shelters!",
">\n\n\"We must solve homelessness by criminalizing it.\"\n\"We must stop abortion by outlawing it.\"\n\"You can't stop gun violence by outlawing guns!\"",
">\n\nDisgusting, inhumane and incredibly immoral. How is walking the earth and poverty a crime?",
">\n\n\nHow is walking the earth and poverty a crime?\n\nWhat's even funnier is that these people claim to be Christians, followers of a man who famously had \"no place to lay his head\" and traveled around mooching off of his followers.",
">\n\nMatthews 25:41-45",
">\n\nThe pillars of democracy are: robust public education, independent journalism, human rights, equality and justice. Promote the pillars of democracy in your house and amongst your friends. Talk about them, talk about how to re-establish them, how to amplify them. Get involved in every democratic process in your community too. Defend democracy good people - it is under direct attack. Rise up and defend democracy and the United States itself from this fascist Republican attack.",
">\n\nHow is the law not fair here? It is equally illegal for both the rich and poor to sleep under a bridge!\n/s",
">\n\nSomething tells me rich people still would never be prosecuted or fined for this lol",
">\n\nFor a party that prides itself on “Christian values” Republicans get off on some really evil shit.",
">\n\nDems involuntarily committing people isnt much better. It's not just a Blue v Red thing. It's a Rich v Poor thing.",
">\n\nOk but that's Eric Adams, he's a cop and a conservative, he's abnormal for Democrats.",
">\n\nGavin Newsome isnt (supposedly) conservative. Neither is Portland, where forced hospitalization of the homeless is also happening.\nAnd really, if he was abnormal, wed see the really blue places creating homes for the homeless. Please god tell me you have proof that I’m wrong though. I would happily be wrong about this.",
">\n\nOk I'll grant you that, but I would hope that these jurisdictions and leaders would not follow that particularly reprehensible lead.",
">\n\nWhy does “We need to get the homeless off the streets.” always sound so progressive in Europe and sinister in the US?",
">\n\nIn the US it often means just put them in prison instead of shoving them in cramped shelters",
">\n\nCapitalism can never solve homelessness, bc they dont make enough money from it. Hence why CA, NY, and WA continue to struggle with it, while places like Missouri make it even worse. There are no pro-homeless states in the US.",
">\n\nThey make a shitload of money off of it lol. Homeless shelters get paid for every bed they have filled. I used to work at a shelter and they’d let dudes stay who were clearly breaking rules or a danger to others because if they have unfilled beds they don’t receive as much money from the government. The entire game is keeping the shelter full, taking the money they give per person (let’s say the budget calls for 200 bucks of resources per resident) they do anything and everything to supply the lowest acceptable level of resources allowed, at as far under that 200 dollar limit as they can. Then they keep the excess money.",
">\n\nShelters aren’t solving homelessness. But good point on how most of our systems designed to help people are still just money making systems at the end of the day.",
">\n\nSpoiler alert, you can’t solve homelessness unless you can somehow force people to not be mentally ill or drug addicted. At the end of the day it has to start with the homeless person. No amount of forcing someone to do x y or z will solve this",
">\n\nCrimes committed against the homeless are already largely ignored. It’s only a matter of time before being homeless becomes grounds for sanctioned murder, like it’s fucking pest control.",
">\n\nLMAO I was homeless for a while and it already is.\nLots of unhoused folks particularly women go missing and never show back up."
] |
>
Have to keep taxpayer dollars going to for-profit prisons somehow | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised.",
">\n\nWhy didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty!",
">\n\nJust like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s",
">\n\nWhen you talk to random people on reddit about homelessness you realize that unfortunately when many people say the \"homelessness problem\", they don't mean that there are homeless people, they mean that they have to see homeless people.\nMany people seem perfectly happy with out of sight out of mind when it comes to the homeless.",
">\n\nTypical conversation with a liberal (I'm a socdem) about homelessness:\nLiberal: \"the homelessness epidemic is inhumane. We must help these people.\"\nMe: \"yes, I agree with you 100%. Let's start a fundraiser to convert that old building into a homeless shelter or low income housing, so that-\"\nLiberal: \"ewwwww no, I don't want homeless people here. The property value of my family's house will go down and I don't wanna see a bunch of tweakers at night.\"\nMe: \".......... alright, I'll just do it myself. Sorry for bothering you.\"",
">\n\nHonest question, do you own a home yourself?",
">\n\nI'll answer your question if you tell me why you're asking. Seems like bait/a trap to me.",
">\n\nDude’s gonna pull the “WhY aReN’t YoU hOuSiNg ThEm??!!111",
">\n\nI own a home (well the bank does, but y'know), and I'd fully endorse using a nearby house as a shelter for people experiencing homelessness. Would it potentially lower property values? Maybe, but I don't really care. Would it potentially mean more petty crime in the area? Also maybe yes, but there are things that could be done to counter that, and the whole point is lifting people out of poverty so that crime isn't something they feel they need to resort to. So yeah, bring on the residential shelters!",
">\n\n\"We must solve homelessness by criminalizing it.\"\n\"We must stop abortion by outlawing it.\"\n\"You can't stop gun violence by outlawing guns!\"",
">\n\nDisgusting, inhumane and incredibly immoral. How is walking the earth and poverty a crime?",
">\n\n\nHow is walking the earth and poverty a crime?\n\nWhat's even funnier is that these people claim to be Christians, followers of a man who famously had \"no place to lay his head\" and traveled around mooching off of his followers.",
">\n\nMatthews 25:41-45",
">\n\nThe pillars of democracy are: robust public education, independent journalism, human rights, equality and justice. Promote the pillars of democracy in your house and amongst your friends. Talk about them, talk about how to re-establish them, how to amplify them. Get involved in every democratic process in your community too. Defend democracy good people - it is under direct attack. Rise up and defend democracy and the United States itself from this fascist Republican attack.",
">\n\nHow is the law not fair here? It is equally illegal for both the rich and poor to sleep under a bridge!\n/s",
">\n\nSomething tells me rich people still would never be prosecuted or fined for this lol",
">\n\nFor a party that prides itself on “Christian values” Republicans get off on some really evil shit.",
">\n\nDems involuntarily committing people isnt much better. It's not just a Blue v Red thing. It's a Rich v Poor thing.",
">\n\nOk but that's Eric Adams, he's a cop and a conservative, he's abnormal for Democrats.",
">\n\nGavin Newsome isnt (supposedly) conservative. Neither is Portland, where forced hospitalization of the homeless is also happening.\nAnd really, if he was abnormal, wed see the really blue places creating homes for the homeless. Please god tell me you have proof that I’m wrong though. I would happily be wrong about this.",
">\n\nOk I'll grant you that, but I would hope that these jurisdictions and leaders would not follow that particularly reprehensible lead.",
">\n\nWhy does “We need to get the homeless off the streets.” always sound so progressive in Europe and sinister in the US?",
">\n\nIn the US it often means just put them in prison instead of shoving them in cramped shelters",
">\n\nCapitalism can never solve homelessness, bc they dont make enough money from it. Hence why CA, NY, and WA continue to struggle with it, while places like Missouri make it even worse. There are no pro-homeless states in the US.",
">\n\nThey make a shitload of money off of it lol. Homeless shelters get paid for every bed they have filled. I used to work at a shelter and they’d let dudes stay who were clearly breaking rules or a danger to others because if they have unfilled beds they don’t receive as much money from the government. The entire game is keeping the shelter full, taking the money they give per person (let’s say the budget calls for 200 bucks of resources per resident) they do anything and everything to supply the lowest acceptable level of resources allowed, at as far under that 200 dollar limit as they can. Then they keep the excess money.",
">\n\nShelters aren’t solving homelessness. But good point on how most of our systems designed to help people are still just money making systems at the end of the day.",
">\n\nSpoiler alert, you can’t solve homelessness unless you can somehow force people to not be mentally ill or drug addicted. At the end of the day it has to start with the homeless person. No amount of forcing someone to do x y or z will solve this",
">\n\nCrimes committed against the homeless are already largely ignored. It’s only a matter of time before being homeless becomes grounds for sanctioned murder, like it’s fucking pest control.",
">\n\nLMAO I was homeless for a while and it already is.\nLots of unhoused folks particularly women go missing and never show back up.",
">\n\nThey'll put them in warehouses run by Geo Corp, then bill you, the taxpayer $750 per day for that \"service\". All of this nonsense, so that America can avoid looking at the reasons why there are so many homeless, and how to get someone back on their feet once homeless. It's dystopian."
] |
>
The choice is to either stay in a homeless shelter full of addicts and mentally ill people, or...?
It's so odd to me that we live in a "free country" but you can't even live in the woods because the woods is owned by somebody else. | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised.",
">\n\nWhy didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty!",
">\n\nJust like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s",
">\n\nWhen you talk to random people on reddit about homelessness you realize that unfortunately when many people say the \"homelessness problem\", they don't mean that there are homeless people, they mean that they have to see homeless people.\nMany people seem perfectly happy with out of sight out of mind when it comes to the homeless.",
">\n\nTypical conversation with a liberal (I'm a socdem) about homelessness:\nLiberal: \"the homelessness epidemic is inhumane. We must help these people.\"\nMe: \"yes, I agree with you 100%. Let's start a fundraiser to convert that old building into a homeless shelter or low income housing, so that-\"\nLiberal: \"ewwwww no, I don't want homeless people here. The property value of my family's house will go down and I don't wanna see a bunch of tweakers at night.\"\nMe: \".......... alright, I'll just do it myself. Sorry for bothering you.\"",
">\n\nHonest question, do you own a home yourself?",
">\n\nI'll answer your question if you tell me why you're asking. Seems like bait/a trap to me.",
">\n\nDude’s gonna pull the “WhY aReN’t YoU hOuSiNg ThEm??!!111",
">\n\nI own a home (well the bank does, but y'know), and I'd fully endorse using a nearby house as a shelter for people experiencing homelessness. Would it potentially lower property values? Maybe, but I don't really care. Would it potentially mean more petty crime in the area? Also maybe yes, but there are things that could be done to counter that, and the whole point is lifting people out of poverty so that crime isn't something they feel they need to resort to. So yeah, bring on the residential shelters!",
">\n\n\"We must solve homelessness by criminalizing it.\"\n\"We must stop abortion by outlawing it.\"\n\"You can't stop gun violence by outlawing guns!\"",
">\n\nDisgusting, inhumane and incredibly immoral. How is walking the earth and poverty a crime?",
">\n\n\nHow is walking the earth and poverty a crime?\n\nWhat's even funnier is that these people claim to be Christians, followers of a man who famously had \"no place to lay his head\" and traveled around mooching off of his followers.",
">\n\nMatthews 25:41-45",
">\n\nThe pillars of democracy are: robust public education, independent journalism, human rights, equality and justice. Promote the pillars of democracy in your house and amongst your friends. Talk about them, talk about how to re-establish them, how to amplify them. Get involved in every democratic process in your community too. Defend democracy good people - it is under direct attack. Rise up and defend democracy and the United States itself from this fascist Republican attack.",
">\n\nHow is the law not fair here? It is equally illegal for both the rich and poor to sleep under a bridge!\n/s",
">\n\nSomething tells me rich people still would never be prosecuted or fined for this lol",
">\n\nFor a party that prides itself on “Christian values” Republicans get off on some really evil shit.",
">\n\nDems involuntarily committing people isnt much better. It's not just a Blue v Red thing. It's a Rich v Poor thing.",
">\n\nOk but that's Eric Adams, he's a cop and a conservative, he's abnormal for Democrats.",
">\n\nGavin Newsome isnt (supposedly) conservative. Neither is Portland, where forced hospitalization of the homeless is also happening.\nAnd really, if he was abnormal, wed see the really blue places creating homes for the homeless. Please god tell me you have proof that I’m wrong though. I would happily be wrong about this.",
">\n\nOk I'll grant you that, but I would hope that these jurisdictions and leaders would not follow that particularly reprehensible lead.",
">\n\nWhy does “We need to get the homeless off the streets.” always sound so progressive in Europe and sinister in the US?",
">\n\nIn the US it often means just put them in prison instead of shoving them in cramped shelters",
">\n\nCapitalism can never solve homelessness, bc they dont make enough money from it. Hence why CA, NY, and WA continue to struggle with it, while places like Missouri make it even worse. There are no pro-homeless states in the US.",
">\n\nThey make a shitload of money off of it lol. Homeless shelters get paid for every bed they have filled. I used to work at a shelter and they’d let dudes stay who were clearly breaking rules or a danger to others because if they have unfilled beds they don’t receive as much money from the government. The entire game is keeping the shelter full, taking the money they give per person (let’s say the budget calls for 200 bucks of resources per resident) they do anything and everything to supply the lowest acceptable level of resources allowed, at as far under that 200 dollar limit as they can. Then they keep the excess money.",
">\n\nShelters aren’t solving homelessness. But good point on how most of our systems designed to help people are still just money making systems at the end of the day.",
">\n\nSpoiler alert, you can’t solve homelessness unless you can somehow force people to not be mentally ill or drug addicted. At the end of the day it has to start with the homeless person. No amount of forcing someone to do x y or z will solve this",
">\n\nCrimes committed against the homeless are already largely ignored. It’s only a matter of time before being homeless becomes grounds for sanctioned murder, like it’s fucking pest control.",
">\n\nLMAO I was homeless for a while and it already is.\nLots of unhoused folks particularly women go missing and never show back up.",
">\n\nThey'll put them in warehouses run by Geo Corp, then bill you, the taxpayer $750 per day for that \"service\". All of this nonsense, so that America can avoid looking at the reasons why there are so many homeless, and how to get someone back on their feet once homeless. It's dystopian.",
">\n\nHave to keep taxpayer dollars going to for-profit prisons somehow"
] |
>
Imagine if we tried actually helping people for once instead of just punishing them. | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised.",
">\n\nWhy didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty!",
">\n\nJust like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s",
">\n\nWhen you talk to random people on reddit about homelessness you realize that unfortunately when many people say the \"homelessness problem\", they don't mean that there are homeless people, they mean that they have to see homeless people.\nMany people seem perfectly happy with out of sight out of mind when it comes to the homeless.",
">\n\nTypical conversation with a liberal (I'm a socdem) about homelessness:\nLiberal: \"the homelessness epidemic is inhumane. We must help these people.\"\nMe: \"yes, I agree with you 100%. Let's start a fundraiser to convert that old building into a homeless shelter or low income housing, so that-\"\nLiberal: \"ewwwww no, I don't want homeless people here. The property value of my family's house will go down and I don't wanna see a bunch of tweakers at night.\"\nMe: \".......... alright, I'll just do it myself. Sorry for bothering you.\"",
">\n\nHonest question, do you own a home yourself?",
">\n\nI'll answer your question if you tell me why you're asking. Seems like bait/a trap to me.",
">\n\nDude’s gonna pull the “WhY aReN’t YoU hOuSiNg ThEm??!!111",
">\n\nI own a home (well the bank does, but y'know), and I'd fully endorse using a nearby house as a shelter for people experiencing homelessness. Would it potentially lower property values? Maybe, but I don't really care. Would it potentially mean more petty crime in the area? Also maybe yes, but there are things that could be done to counter that, and the whole point is lifting people out of poverty so that crime isn't something they feel they need to resort to. So yeah, bring on the residential shelters!",
">\n\n\"We must solve homelessness by criminalizing it.\"\n\"We must stop abortion by outlawing it.\"\n\"You can't stop gun violence by outlawing guns!\"",
">\n\nDisgusting, inhumane and incredibly immoral. How is walking the earth and poverty a crime?",
">\n\n\nHow is walking the earth and poverty a crime?\n\nWhat's even funnier is that these people claim to be Christians, followers of a man who famously had \"no place to lay his head\" and traveled around mooching off of his followers.",
">\n\nMatthews 25:41-45",
">\n\nThe pillars of democracy are: robust public education, independent journalism, human rights, equality and justice. Promote the pillars of democracy in your house and amongst your friends. Talk about them, talk about how to re-establish them, how to amplify them. Get involved in every democratic process in your community too. Defend democracy good people - it is under direct attack. Rise up and defend democracy and the United States itself from this fascist Republican attack.",
">\n\nHow is the law not fair here? It is equally illegal for both the rich and poor to sleep under a bridge!\n/s",
">\n\nSomething tells me rich people still would never be prosecuted or fined for this lol",
">\n\nFor a party that prides itself on “Christian values” Republicans get off on some really evil shit.",
">\n\nDems involuntarily committing people isnt much better. It's not just a Blue v Red thing. It's a Rich v Poor thing.",
">\n\nOk but that's Eric Adams, he's a cop and a conservative, he's abnormal for Democrats.",
">\n\nGavin Newsome isnt (supposedly) conservative. Neither is Portland, where forced hospitalization of the homeless is also happening.\nAnd really, if he was abnormal, wed see the really blue places creating homes for the homeless. Please god tell me you have proof that I’m wrong though. I would happily be wrong about this.",
">\n\nOk I'll grant you that, but I would hope that these jurisdictions and leaders would not follow that particularly reprehensible lead.",
">\n\nWhy does “We need to get the homeless off the streets.” always sound so progressive in Europe and sinister in the US?",
">\n\nIn the US it often means just put them in prison instead of shoving them in cramped shelters",
">\n\nCapitalism can never solve homelessness, bc they dont make enough money from it. Hence why CA, NY, and WA continue to struggle with it, while places like Missouri make it even worse. There are no pro-homeless states in the US.",
">\n\nThey make a shitload of money off of it lol. Homeless shelters get paid for every bed they have filled. I used to work at a shelter and they’d let dudes stay who were clearly breaking rules or a danger to others because if they have unfilled beds they don’t receive as much money from the government. The entire game is keeping the shelter full, taking the money they give per person (let’s say the budget calls for 200 bucks of resources per resident) they do anything and everything to supply the lowest acceptable level of resources allowed, at as far under that 200 dollar limit as they can. Then they keep the excess money.",
">\n\nShelters aren’t solving homelessness. But good point on how most of our systems designed to help people are still just money making systems at the end of the day.",
">\n\nSpoiler alert, you can’t solve homelessness unless you can somehow force people to not be mentally ill or drug addicted. At the end of the day it has to start with the homeless person. No amount of forcing someone to do x y or z will solve this",
">\n\nCrimes committed against the homeless are already largely ignored. It’s only a matter of time before being homeless becomes grounds for sanctioned murder, like it’s fucking pest control.",
">\n\nLMAO I was homeless for a while and it already is.\nLots of unhoused folks particularly women go missing and never show back up.",
">\n\nThey'll put them in warehouses run by Geo Corp, then bill you, the taxpayer $750 per day for that \"service\". All of this nonsense, so that America can avoid looking at the reasons why there are so many homeless, and how to get someone back on their feet once homeless. It's dystopian.",
">\n\nHave to keep taxpayer dollars going to for-profit prisons somehow",
">\n\nThe choice is to either stay in a homeless shelter full of addicts and mentally ill people, or...? \nIt's so odd to me that we live in a \"free country\" but you can't even live in the woods because the woods is owned by somebody else."
] |
>
Oh you’re broke! Let’s just help you out with a little prison time too. It’s what Jesus would do. | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised.",
">\n\nWhy didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty!",
">\n\nJust like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s",
">\n\nWhen you talk to random people on reddit about homelessness you realize that unfortunately when many people say the \"homelessness problem\", they don't mean that there are homeless people, they mean that they have to see homeless people.\nMany people seem perfectly happy with out of sight out of mind when it comes to the homeless.",
">\n\nTypical conversation with a liberal (I'm a socdem) about homelessness:\nLiberal: \"the homelessness epidemic is inhumane. We must help these people.\"\nMe: \"yes, I agree with you 100%. Let's start a fundraiser to convert that old building into a homeless shelter or low income housing, so that-\"\nLiberal: \"ewwwww no, I don't want homeless people here. The property value of my family's house will go down and I don't wanna see a bunch of tweakers at night.\"\nMe: \".......... alright, I'll just do it myself. Sorry for bothering you.\"",
">\n\nHonest question, do you own a home yourself?",
">\n\nI'll answer your question if you tell me why you're asking. Seems like bait/a trap to me.",
">\n\nDude’s gonna pull the “WhY aReN’t YoU hOuSiNg ThEm??!!111",
">\n\nI own a home (well the bank does, but y'know), and I'd fully endorse using a nearby house as a shelter for people experiencing homelessness. Would it potentially lower property values? Maybe, but I don't really care. Would it potentially mean more petty crime in the area? Also maybe yes, but there are things that could be done to counter that, and the whole point is lifting people out of poverty so that crime isn't something they feel they need to resort to. So yeah, bring on the residential shelters!",
">\n\n\"We must solve homelessness by criminalizing it.\"\n\"We must stop abortion by outlawing it.\"\n\"You can't stop gun violence by outlawing guns!\"",
">\n\nDisgusting, inhumane and incredibly immoral. How is walking the earth and poverty a crime?",
">\n\n\nHow is walking the earth and poverty a crime?\n\nWhat's even funnier is that these people claim to be Christians, followers of a man who famously had \"no place to lay his head\" and traveled around mooching off of his followers.",
">\n\nMatthews 25:41-45",
">\n\nThe pillars of democracy are: robust public education, independent journalism, human rights, equality and justice. Promote the pillars of democracy in your house and amongst your friends. Talk about them, talk about how to re-establish them, how to amplify them. Get involved in every democratic process in your community too. Defend democracy good people - it is under direct attack. Rise up and defend democracy and the United States itself from this fascist Republican attack.",
">\n\nHow is the law not fair here? It is equally illegal for both the rich and poor to sleep under a bridge!\n/s",
">\n\nSomething tells me rich people still would never be prosecuted or fined for this lol",
">\n\nFor a party that prides itself on “Christian values” Republicans get off on some really evil shit.",
">\n\nDems involuntarily committing people isnt much better. It's not just a Blue v Red thing. It's a Rich v Poor thing.",
">\n\nOk but that's Eric Adams, he's a cop and a conservative, he's abnormal for Democrats.",
">\n\nGavin Newsome isnt (supposedly) conservative. Neither is Portland, where forced hospitalization of the homeless is also happening.\nAnd really, if he was abnormal, wed see the really blue places creating homes for the homeless. Please god tell me you have proof that I’m wrong though. I would happily be wrong about this.",
">\n\nOk I'll grant you that, but I would hope that these jurisdictions and leaders would not follow that particularly reprehensible lead.",
">\n\nWhy does “We need to get the homeless off the streets.” always sound so progressive in Europe and sinister in the US?",
">\n\nIn the US it often means just put them in prison instead of shoving them in cramped shelters",
">\n\nCapitalism can never solve homelessness, bc they dont make enough money from it. Hence why CA, NY, and WA continue to struggle with it, while places like Missouri make it even worse. There are no pro-homeless states in the US.",
">\n\nThey make a shitload of money off of it lol. Homeless shelters get paid for every bed they have filled. I used to work at a shelter and they’d let dudes stay who were clearly breaking rules or a danger to others because if they have unfilled beds they don’t receive as much money from the government. The entire game is keeping the shelter full, taking the money they give per person (let’s say the budget calls for 200 bucks of resources per resident) they do anything and everything to supply the lowest acceptable level of resources allowed, at as far under that 200 dollar limit as they can. Then they keep the excess money.",
">\n\nShelters aren’t solving homelessness. But good point on how most of our systems designed to help people are still just money making systems at the end of the day.",
">\n\nSpoiler alert, you can’t solve homelessness unless you can somehow force people to not be mentally ill or drug addicted. At the end of the day it has to start with the homeless person. No amount of forcing someone to do x y or z will solve this",
">\n\nCrimes committed against the homeless are already largely ignored. It’s only a matter of time before being homeless becomes grounds for sanctioned murder, like it’s fucking pest control.",
">\n\nLMAO I was homeless for a while and it already is.\nLots of unhoused folks particularly women go missing and never show back up.",
">\n\nThey'll put them in warehouses run by Geo Corp, then bill you, the taxpayer $750 per day for that \"service\". All of this nonsense, so that America can avoid looking at the reasons why there are so many homeless, and how to get someone back on their feet once homeless. It's dystopian.",
">\n\nHave to keep taxpayer dollars going to for-profit prisons somehow",
">\n\nThe choice is to either stay in a homeless shelter full of addicts and mentally ill people, or...? \nIt's so odd to me that we live in a \"free country\" but you can't even live in the woods because the woods is owned by somebody else.",
">\n\nImagine if we tried actually helping people for once instead of just punishing them."
] |
>
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)
Cities across the country have seen a backlash to attempts by officials to remove homeless encampments or limit where unhoused people can camp.
Protesters marched through the downtown Chicago area in November to protest against the city's announcement that donated winterized tents for homeless people had to be removed for street cleaning, reported the Chicago Tribune.
Y Robelo, founder of the non-profit Feeding People Through Plants, provided the tents and criticized the city's treatment of homeless people.
Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: people^#1 city^#2 law^#3 homeless^#4 new^#5 | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised.",
">\n\nWhy didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty!",
">\n\nJust like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s",
">\n\nWhen you talk to random people on reddit about homelessness you realize that unfortunately when many people say the \"homelessness problem\", they don't mean that there are homeless people, they mean that they have to see homeless people.\nMany people seem perfectly happy with out of sight out of mind when it comes to the homeless.",
">\n\nTypical conversation with a liberal (I'm a socdem) about homelessness:\nLiberal: \"the homelessness epidemic is inhumane. We must help these people.\"\nMe: \"yes, I agree with you 100%. Let's start a fundraiser to convert that old building into a homeless shelter or low income housing, so that-\"\nLiberal: \"ewwwww no, I don't want homeless people here. The property value of my family's house will go down and I don't wanna see a bunch of tweakers at night.\"\nMe: \".......... alright, I'll just do it myself. Sorry for bothering you.\"",
">\n\nHonest question, do you own a home yourself?",
">\n\nI'll answer your question if you tell me why you're asking. Seems like bait/a trap to me.",
">\n\nDude’s gonna pull the “WhY aReN’t YoU hOuSiNg ThEm??!!111",
">\n\nI own a home (well the bank does, but y'know), and I'd fully endorse using a nearby house as a shelter for people experiencing homelessness. Would it potentially lower property values? Maybe, but I don't really care. Would it potentially mean more petty crime in the area? Also maybe yes, but there are things that could be done to counter that, and the whole point is lifting people out of poverty so that crime isn't something they feel they need to resort to. So yeah, bring on the residential shelters!",
">\n\n\"We must solve homelessness by criminalizing it.\"\n\"We must stop abortion by outlawing it.\"\n\"You can't stop gun violence by outlawing guns!\"",
">\n\nDisgusting, inhumane and incredibly immoral. How is walking the earth and poverty a crime?",
">\n\n\nHow is walking the earth and poverty a crime?\n\nWhat's even funnier is that these people claim to be Christians, followers of a man who famously had \"no place to lay his head\" and traveled around mooching off of his followers.",
">\n\nMatthews 25:41-45",
">\n\nThe pillars of democracy are: robust public education, independent journalism, human rights, equality and justice. Promote the pillars of democracy in your house and amongst your friends. Talk about them, talk about how to re-establish them, how to amplify them. Get involved in every democratic process in your community too. Defend democracy good people - it is under direct attack. Rise up and defend democracy and the United States itself from this fascist Republican attack.",
">\n\nHow is the law not fair here? It is equally illegal for both the rich and poor to sleep under a bridge!\n/s",
">\n\nSomething tells me rich people still would never be prosecuted or fined for this lol",
">\n\nFor a party that prides itself on “Christian values” Republicans get off on some really evil shit.",
">\n\nDems involuntarily committing people isnt much better. It's not just a Blue v Red thing. It's a Rich v Poor thing.",
">\n\nOk but that's Eric Adams, he's a cop and a conservative, he's abnormal for Democrats.",
">\n\nGavin Newsome isnt (supposedly) conservative. Neither is Portland, where forced hospitalization of the homeless is also happening.\nAnd really, if he was abnormal, wed see the really blue places creating homes for the homeless. Please god tell me you have proof that I’m wrong though. I would happily be wrong about this.",
">\n\nOk I'll grant you that, but I would hope that these jurisdictions and leaders would not follow that particularly reprehensible lead.",
">\n\nWhy does “We need to get the homeless off the streets.” always sound so progressive in Europe and sinister in the US?",
">\n\nIn the US it often means just put them in prison instead of shoving them in cramped shelters",
">\n\nCapitalism can never solve homelessness, bc they dont make enough money from it. Hence why CA, NY, and WA continue to struggle with it, while places like Missouri make it even worse. There are no pro-homeless states in the US.",
">\n\nThey make a shitload of money off of it lol. Homeless shelters get paid for every bed they have filled. I used to work at a shelter and they’d let dudes stay who were clearly breaking rules or a danger to others because if they have unfilled beds they don’t receive as much money from the government. The entire game is keeping the shelter full, taking the money they give per person (let’s say the budget calls for 200 bucks of resources per resident) they do anything and everything to supply the lowest acceptable level of resources allowed, at as far under that 200 dollar limit as they can. Then they keep the excess money.",
">\n\nShelters aren’t solving homelessness. But good point on how most of our systems designed to help people are still just money making systems at the end of the day.",
">\n\nSpoiler alert, you can’t solve homelessness unless you can somehow force people to not be mentally ill or drug addicted. At the end of the day it has to start with the homeless person. No amount of forcing someone to do x y or z will solve this",
">\n\nCrimes committed against the homeless are already largely ignored. It’s only a matter of time before being homeless becomes grounds for sanctioned murder, like it’s fucking pest control.",
">\n\nLMAO I was homeless for a while and it already is.\nLots of unhoused folks particularly women go missing and never show back up.",
">\n\nThey'll put them in warehouses run by Geo Corp, then bill you, the taxpayer $750 per day for that \"service\". All of this nonsense, so that America can avoid looking at the reasons why there are so many homeless, and how to get someone back on their feet once homeless. It's dystopian.",
">\n\nHave to keep taxpayer dollars going to for-profit prisons somehow",
">\n\nThe choice is to either stay in a homeless shelter full of addicts and mentally ill people, or...? \nIt's so odd to me that we live in a \"free country\" but you can't even live in the woods because the woods is owned by somebody else.",
">\n\nImagine if we tried actually helping people for once instead of just punishing them.",
">\n\nOh you’re broke! Let’s just help you out with a little prison time too. It’s what Jesus would do."
] |
>
‘Anti-homeless’ laws sound as stupid as ‘anti-sneezing’ laws.
Just because you rule out something it doesn’t mean it ceases to exist, when the ‘offenders’ have little power over it. | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised.",
">\n\nWhy didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty!",
">\n\nJust like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s",
">\n\nWhen you talk to random people on reddit about homelessness you realize that unfortunately when many people say the \"homelessness problem\", they don't mean that there are homeless people, they mean that they have to see homeless people.\nMany people seem perfectly happy with out of sight out of mind when it comes to the homeless.",
">\n\nTypical conversation with a liberal (I'm a socdem) about homelessness:\nLiberal: \"the homelessness epidemic is inhumane. We must help these people.\"\nMe: \"yes, I agree with you 100%. Let's start a fundraiser to convert that old building into a homeless shelter or low income housing, so that-\"\nLiberal: \"ewwwww no, I don't want homeless people here. The property value of my family's house will go down and I don't wanna see a bunch of tweakers at night.\"\nMe: \".......... alright, I'll just do it myself. Sorry for bothering you.\"",
">\n\nHonest question, do you own a home yourself?",
">\n\nI'll answer your question if you tell me why you're asking. Seems like bait/a trap to me.",
">\n\nDude’s gonna pull the “WhY aReN’t YoU hOuSiNg ThEm??!!111",
">\n\nI own a home (well the bank does, but y'know), and I'd fully endorse using a nearby house as a shelter for people experiencing homelessness. Would it potentially lower property values? Maybe, but I don't really care. Would it potentially mean more petty crime in the area? Also maybe yes, but there are things that could be done to counter that, and the whole point is lifting people out of poverty so that crime isn't something they feel they need to resort to. So yeah, bring on the residential shelters!",
">\n\n\"We must solve homelessness by criminalizing it.\"\n\"We must stop abortion by outlawing it.\"\n\"You can't stop gun violence by outlawing guns!\"",
">\n\nDisgusting, inhumane and incredibly immoral. How is walking the earth and poverty a crime?",
">\n\n\nHow is walking the earth and poverty a crime?\n\nWhat's even funnier is that these people claim to be Christians, followers of a man who famously had \"no place to lay his head\" and traveled around mooching off of his followers.",
">\n\nMatthews 25:41-45",
">\n\nThe pillars of democracy are: robust public education, independent journalism, human rights, equality and justice. Promote the pillars of democracy in your house and amongst your friends. Talk about them, talk about how to re-establish them, how to amplify them. Get involved in every democratic process in your community too. Defend democracy good people - it is under direct attack. Rise up and defend democracy and the United States itself from this fascist Republican attack.",
">\n\nHow is the law not fair here? It is equally illegal for both the rich and poor to sleep under a bridge!\n/s",
">\n\nSomething tells me rich people still would never be prosecuted or fined for this lol",
">\n\nFor a party that prides itself on “Christian values” Republicans get off on some really evil shit.",
">\n\nDems involuntarily committing people isnt much better. It's not just a Blue v Red thing. It's a Rich v Poor thing.",
">\n\nOk but that's Eric Adams, he's a cop and a conservative, he's abnormal for Democrats.",
">\n\nGavin Newsome isnt (supposedly) conservative. Neither is Portland, where forced hospitalization of the homeless is also happening.\nAnd really, if he was abnormal, wed see the really blue places creating homes for the homeless. Please god tell me you have proof that I’m wrong though. I would happily be wrong about this.",
">\n\nOk I'll grant you that, but I would hope that these jurisdictions and leaders would not follow that particularly reprehensible lead.",
">\n\nWhy does “We need to get the homeless off the streets.” always sound so progressive in Europe and sinister in the US?",
">\n\nIn the US it often means just put them in prison instead of shoving them in cramped shelters",
">\n\nCapitalism can never solve homelessness, bc they dont make enough money from it. Hence why CA, NY, and WA continue to struggle with it, while places like Missouri make it even worse. There are no pro-homeless states in the US.",
">\n\nThey make a shitload of money off of it lol. Homeless shelters get paid for every bed they have filled. I used to work at a shelter and they’d let dudes stay who were clearly breaking rules or a danger to others because if they have unfilled beds they don’t receive as much money from the government. The entire game is keeping the shelter full, taking the money they give per person (let’s say the budget calls for 200 bucks of resources per resident) they do anything and everything to supply the lowest acceptable level of resources allowed, at as far under that 200 dollar limit as they can. Then they keep the excess money.",
">\n\nShelters aren’t solving homelessness. But good point on how most of our systems designed to help people are still just money making systems at the end of the day.",
">\n\nSpoiler alert, you can’t solve homelessness unless you can somehow force people to not be mentally ill or drug addicted. At the end of the day it has to start with the homeless person. No amount of forcing someone to do x y or z will solve this",
">\n\nCrimes committed against the homeless are already largely ignored. It’s only a matter of time before being homeless becomes grounds for sanctioned murder, like it’s fucking pest control.",
">\n\nLMAO I was homeless for a while and it already is.\nLots of unhoused folks particularly women go missing and never show back up.",
">\n\nThey'll put them in warehouses run by Geo Corp, then bill you, the taxpayer $750 per day for that \"service\". All of this nonsense, so that America can avoid looking at the reasons why there are so many homeless, and how to get someone back on their feet once homeless. It's dystopian.",
">\n\nHave to keep taxpayer dollars going to for-profit prisons somehow",
">\n\nThe choice is to either stay in a homeless shelter full of addicts and mentally ill people, or...? \nIt's so odd to me that we live in a \"free country\" but you can't even live in the woods because the woods is owned by somebody else.",
">\n\nImagine if we tried actually helping people for once instead of just punishing them.",
">\n\nOh you’re broke! Let’s just help you out with a little prison time too. It’s what Jesus would do.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nCities across the country have seen a backlash to attempts by officials to remove homeless encampments or limit where unhoused people can camp.\nProtesters marched through the downtown Chicago area in November to protest against the city's announcement that donated winterized tents for homeless people had to be removed for street cleaning, reported the Chicago Tribune.\nY Robelo, founder of the non-profit Feeding People Through Plants, provided the tents and criticized the city's treatment of homeless people.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: people^#1 city^#2 law^#3 homeless^#4 new^#5"
] |
>
It’s almost like there’s money to be made in the privatisation of prisons or something. | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised.",
">\n\nWhy didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty!",
">\n\nJust like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s",
">\n\nWhen you talk to random people on reddit about homelessness you realize that unfortunately when many people say the \"homelessness problem\", they don't mean that there are homeless people, they mean that they have to see homeless people.\nMany people seem perfectly happy with out of sight out of mind when it comes to the homeless.",
">\n\nTypical conversation with a liberal (I'm a socdem) about homelessness:\nLiberal: \"the homelessness epidemic is inhumane. We must help these people.\"\nMe: \"yes, I agree with you 100%. Let's start a fundraiser to convert that old building into a homeless shelter or low income housing, so that-\"\nLiberal: \"ewwwww no, I don't want homeless people here. The property value of my family's house will go down and I don't wanna see a bunch of tweakers at night.\"\nMe: \".......... alright, I'll just do it myself. Sorry for bothering you.\"",
">\n\nHonest question, do you own a home yourself?",
">\n\nI'll answer your question if you tell me why you're asking. Seems like bait/a trap to me.",
">\n\nDude’s gonna pull the “WhY aReN’t YoU hOuSiNg ThEm??!!111",
">\n\nI own a home (well the bank does, but y'know), and I'd fully endorse using a nearby house as a shelter for people experiencing homelessness. Would it potentially lower property values? Maybe, but I don't really care. Would it potentially mean more petty crime in the area? Also maybe yes, but there are things that could be done to counter that, and the whole point is lifting people out of poverty so that crime isn't something they feel they need to resort to. So yeah, bring on the residential shelters!",
">\n\n\"We must solve homelessness by criminalizing it.\"\n\"We must stop abortion by outlawing it.\"\n\"You can't stop gun violence by outlawing guns!\"",
">\n\nDisgusting, inhumane and incredibly immoral. How is walking the earth and poverty a crime?",
">\n\n\nHow is walking the earth and poverty a crime?\n\nWhat's even funnier is that these people claim to be Christians, followers of a man who famously had \"no place to lay his head\" and traveled around mooching off of his followers.",
">\n\nMatthews 25:41-45",
">\n\nThe pillars of democracy are: robust public education, independent journalism, human rights, equality and justice. Promote the pillars of democracy in your house and amongst your friends. Talk about them, talk about how to re-establish them, how to amplify them. Get involved in every democratic process in your community too. Defend democracy good people - it is under direct attack. Rise up and defend democracy and the United States itself from this fascist Republican attack.",
">\n\nHow is the law not fair here? It is equally illegal for both the rich and poor to sleep under a bridge!\n/s",
">\n\nSomething tells me rich people still would never be prosecuted or fined for this lol",
">\n\nFor a party that prides itself on “Christian values” Republicans get off on some really evil shit.",
">\n\nDems involuntarily committing people isnt much better. It's not just a Blue v Red thing. It's a Rich v Poor thing.",
">\n\nOk but that's Eric Adams, he's a cop and a conservative, he's abnormal for Democrats.",
">\n\nGavin Newsome isnt (supposedly) conservative. Neither is Portland, where forced hospitalization of the homeless is also happening.\nAnd really, if he was abnormal, wed see the really blue places creating homes for the homeless. Please god tell me you have proof that I’m wrong though. I would happily be wrong about this.",
">\n\nOk I'll grant you that, but I would hope that these jurisdictions and leaders would not follow that particularly reprehensible lead.",
">\n\nWhy does “We need to get the homeless off the streets.” always sound so progressive in Europe and sinister in the US?",
">\n\nIn the US it often means just put them in prison instead of shoving them in cramped shelters",
">\n\nCapitalism can never solve homelessness, bc they dont make enough money from it. Hence why CA, NY, and WA continue to struggle with it, while places like Missouri make it even worse. There are no pro-homeless states in the US.",
">\n\nThey make a shitload of money off of it lol. Homeless shelters get paid for every bed they have filled. I used to work at a shelter and they’d let dudes stay who were clearly breaking rules or a danger to others because if they have unfilled beds they don’t receive as much money from the government. The entire game is keeping the shelter full, taking the money they give per person (let’s say the budget calls for 200 bucks of resources per resident) they do anything and everything to supply the lowest acceptable level of resources allowed, at as far under that 200 dollar limit as they can. Then they keep the excess money.",
">\n\nShelters aren’t solving homelessness. But good point on how most of our systems designed to help people are still just money making systems at the end of the day.",
">\n\nSpoiler alert, you can’t solve homelessness unless you can somehow force people to not be mentally ill or drug addicted. At the end of the day it has to start with the homeless person. No amount of forcing someone to do x y or z will solve this",
">\n\nCrimes committed against the homeless are already largely ignored. It’s only a matter of time before being homeless becomes grounds for sanctioned murder, like it’s fucking pest control.",
">\n\nLMAO I was homeless for a while and it already is.\nLots of unhoused folks particularly women go missing and never show back up.",
">\n\nThey'll put them in warehouses run by Geo Corp, then bill you, the taxpayer $750 per day for that \"service\". All of this nonsense, so that America can avoid looking at the reasons why there are so many homeless, and how to get someone back on their feet once homeless. It's dystopian.",
">\n\nHave to keep taxpayer dollars going to for-profit prisons somehow",
">\n\nThe choice is to either stay in a homeless shelter full of addicts and mentally ill people, or...? \nIt's so odd to me that we live in a \"free country\" but you can't even live in the woods because the woods is owned by somebody else.",
">\n\nImagine if we tried actually helping people for once instead of just punishing them.",
">\n\nOh you’re broke! Let’s just help you out with a little prison time too. It’s what Jesus would do.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nCities across the country have seen a backlash to attempts by officials to remove homeless encampments or limit where unhoused people can camp.\nProtesters marched through the downtown Chicago area in November to protest against the city's announcement that donated winterized tents for homeless people had to be removed for street cleaning, reported the Chicago Tribune.\nY Robelo, founder of the non-profit Feeding People Through Plants, provided the tents and criticized the city's treatment of homeless people.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: people^#1 city^#2 law^#3 homeless^#4 new^#5",
">\n\n‘Anti-homeless’ laws sound as stupid as ‘anti-sneezing’ laws. \nJust because you rule out something it doesn’t mean it ceases to exist, when the ‘offenders’ have little power over it."
] |
>
Just making it illegal to be poor now so they can fill prisons and get slave labor from the inmates, on top of taking away their rights in general and making a profit from it. | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised.",
">\n\nWhy didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty!",
">\n\nJust like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s",
">\n\nWhen you talk to random people on reddit about homelessness you realize that unfortunately when many people say the \"homelessness problem\", they don't mean that there are homeless people, they mean that they have to see homeless people.\nMany people seem perfectly happy with out of sight out of mind when it comes to the homeless.",
">\n\nTypical conversation with a liberal (I'm a socdem) about homelessness:\nLiberal: \"the homelessness epidemic is inhumane. We must help these people.\"\nMe: \"yes, I agree with you 100%. Let's start a fundraiser to convert that old building into a homeless shelter or low income housing, so that-\"\nLiberal: \"ewwwww no, I don't want homeless people here. The property value of my family's house will go down and I don't wanna see a bunch of tweakers at night.\"\nMe: \".......... alright, I'll just do it myself. Sorry for bothering you.\"",
">\n\nHonest question, do you own a home yourself?",
">\n\nI'll answer your question if you tell me why you're asking. Seems like bait/a trap to me.",
">\n\nDude’s gonna pull the “WhY aReN’t YoU hOuSiNg ThEm??!!111",
">\n\nI own a home (well the bank does, but y'know), and I'd fully endorse using a nearby house as a shelter for people experiencing homelessness. Would it potentially lower property values? Maybe, but I don't really care. Would it potentially mean more petty crime in the area? Also maybe yes, but there are things that could be done to counter that, and the whole point is lifting people out of poverty so that crime isn't something they feel they need to resort to. So yeah, bring on the residential shelters!",
">\n\n\"We must solve homelessness by criminalizing it.\"\n\"We must stop abortion by outlawing it.\"\n\"You can't stop gun violence by outlawing guns!\"",
">\n\nDisgusting, inhumane and incredibly immoral. How is walking the earth and poverty a crime?",
">\n\n\nHow is walking the earth and poverty a crime?\n\nWhat's even funnier is that these people claim to be Christians, followers of a man who famously had \"no place to lay his head\" and traveled around mooching off of his followers.",
">\n\nMatthews 25:41-45",
">\n\nThe pillars of democracy are: robust public education, independent journalism, human rights, equality and justice. Promote the pillars of democracy in your house and amongst your friends. Talk about them, talk about how to re-establish them, how to amplify them. Get involved in every democratic process in your community too. Defend democracy good people - it is under direct attack. Rise up and defend democracy and the United States itself from this fascist Republican attack.",
">\n\nHow is the law not fair here? It is equally illegal for both the rich and poor to sleep under a bridge!\n/s",
">\n\nSomething tells me rich people still would never be prosecuted or fined for this lol",
">\n\nFor a party that prides itself on “Christian values” Republicans get off on some really evil shit.",
">\n\nDems involuntarily committing people isnt much better. It's not just a Blue v Red thing. It's a Rich v Poor thing.",
">\n\nOk but that's Eric Adams, he's a cop and a conservative, he's abnormal for Democrats.",
">\n\nGavin Newsome isnt (supposedly) conservative. Neither is Portland, where forced hospitalization of the homeless is also happening.\nAnd really, if he was abnormal, wed see the really blue places creating homes for the homeless. Please god tell me you have proof that I’m wrong though. I would happily be wrong about this.",
">\n\nOk I'll grant you that, but I would hope that these jurisdictions and leaders would not follow that particularly reprehensible lead.",
">\n\nWhy does “We need to get the homeless off the streets.” always sound so progressive in Europe and sinister in the US?",
">\n\nIn the US it often means just put them in prison instead of shoving them in cramped shelters",
">\n\nCapitalism can never solve homelessness, bc they dont make enough money from it. Hence why CA, NY, and WA continue to struggle with it, while places like Missouri make it even worse. There are no pro-homeless states in the US.",
">\n\nThey make a shitload of money off of it lol. Homeless shelters get paid for every bed they have filled. I used to work at a shelter and they’d let dudes stay who were clearly breaking rules or a danger to others because if they have unfilled beds they don’t receive as much money from the government. The entire game is keeping the shelter full, taking the money they give per person (let’s say the budget calls for 200 bucks of resources per resident) they do anything and everything to supply the lowest acceptable level of resources allowed, at as far under that 200 dollar limit as they can. Then they keep the excess money.",
">\n\nShelters aren’t solving homelessness. But good point on how most of our systems designed to help people are still just money making systems at the end of the day.",
">\n\nSpoiler alert, you can’t solve homelessness unless you can somehow force people to not be mentally ill or drug addicted. At the end of the day it has to start with the homeless person. No amount of forcing someone to do x y or z will solve this",
">\n\nCrimes committed against the homeless are already largely ignored. It’s only a matter of time before being homeless becomes grounds for sanctioned murder, like it’s fucking pest control.",
">\n\nLMAO I was homeless for a while and it already is.\nLots of unhoused folks particularly women go missing and never show back up.",
">\n\nThey'll put them in warehouses run by Geo Corp, then bill you, the taxpayer $750 per day for that \"service\". All of this nonsense, so that America can avoid looking at the reasons why there are so many homeless, and how to get someone back on their feet once homeless. It's dystopian.",
">\n\nHave to keep taxpayer dollars going to for-profit prisons somehow",
">\n\nThe choice is to either stay in a homeless shelter full of addicts and mentally ill people, or...? \nIt's so odd to me that we live in a \"free country\" but you can't even live in the woods because the woods is owned by somebody else.",
">\n\nImagine if we tried actually helping people for once instead of just punishing them.",
">\n\nOh you’re broke! Let’s just help you out with a little prison time too. It’s what Jesus would do.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nCities across the country have seen a backlash to attempts by officials to remove homeless encampments or limit where unhoused people can camp.\nProtesters marched through the downtown Chicago area in November to protest against the city's announcement that donated winterized tents for homeless people had to be removed for street cleaning, reported the Chicago Tribune.\nY Robelo, founder of the non-profit Feeding People Through Plants, provided the tents and criticized the city's treatment of homeless people.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: people^#1 city^#2 law^#3 homeless^#4 new^#5",
">\n\n‘Anti-homeless’ laws sound as stupid as ‘anti-sneezing’ laws. \nJust because you rule out something it doesn’t mean it ceases to exist, when the ‘offenders’ have little power over it.",
">\n\nIt’s almost like there’s money to be made in the privatisation of prisons or something."
] |
>
When their prison budgets blow up at least they will have solved the homeless problem, by actually housing in a WAY more expensive way.
Locking people is not a solution, it is cruel but that’s republicans. | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised.",
">\n\nWhy didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty!",
">\n\nJust like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s",
">\n\nWhen you talk to random people on reddit about homelessness you realize that unfortunately when many people say the \"homelessness problem\", they don't mean that there are homeless people, they mean that they have to see homeless people.\nMany people seem perfectly happy with out of sight out of mind when it comes to the homeless.",
">\n\nTypical conversation with a liberal (I'm a socdem) about homelessness:\nLiberal: \"the homelessness epidemic is inhumane. We must help these people.\"\nMe: \"yes, I agree with you 100%. Let's start a fundraiser to convert that old building into a homeless shelter or low income housing, so that-\"\nLiberal: \"ewwwww no, I don't want homeless people here. The property value of my family's house will go down and I don't wanna see a bunch of tweakers at night.\"\nMe: \".......... alright, I'll just do it myself. Sorry for bothering you.\"",
">\n\nHonest question, do you own a home yourself?",
">\n\nI'll answer your question if you tell me why you're asking. Seems like bait/a trap to me.",
">\n\nDude’s gonna pull the “WhY aReN’t YoU hOuSiNg ThEm??!!111",
">\n\nI own a home (well the bank does, but y'know), and I'd fully endorse using a nearby house as a shelter for people experiencing homelessness. Would it potentially lower property values? Maybe, but I don't really care. Would it potentially mean more petty crime in the area? Also maybe yes, but there are things that could be done to counter that, and the whole point is lifting people out of poverty so that crime isn't something they feel they need to resort to. So yeah, bring on the residential shelters!",
">\n\n\"We must solve homelessness by criminalizing it.\"\n\"We must stop abortion by outlawing it.\"\n\"You can't stop gun violence by outlawing guns!\"",
">\n\nDisgusting, inhumane and incredibly immoral. How is walking the earth and poverty a crime?",
">\n\n\nHow is walking the earth and poverty a crime?\n\nWhat's even funnier is that these people claim to be Christians, followers of a man who famously had \"no place to lay his head\" and traveled around mooching off of his followers.",
">\n\nMatthews 25:41-45",
">\n\nThe pillars of democracy are: robust public education, independent journalism, human rights, equality and justice. Promote the pillars of democracy in your house and amongst your friends. Talk about them, talk about how to re-establish them, how to amplify them. Get involved in every democratic process in your community too. Defend democracy good people - it is under direct attack. Rise up and defend democracy and the United States itself from this fascist Republican attack.",
">\n\nHow is the law not fair here? It is equally illegal for both the rich and poor to sleep under a bridge!\n/s",
">\n\nSomething tells me rich people still would never be prosecuted or fined for this lol",
">\n\nFor a party that prides itself on “Christian values” Republicans get off on some really evil shit.",
">\n\nDems involuntarily committing people isnt much better. It's not just a Blue v Red thing. It's a Rich v Poor thing.",
">\n\nOk but that's Eric Adams, he's a cop and a conservative, he's abnormal for Democrats.",
">\n\nGavin Newsome isnt (supposedly) conservative. Neither is Portland, where forced hospitalization of the homeless is also happening.\nAnd really, if he was abnormal, wed see the really blue places creating homes for the homeless. Please god tell me you have proof that I’m wrong though. I would happily be wrong about this.",
">\n\nOk I'll grant you that, but I would hope that these jurisdictions and leaders would not follow that particularly reprehensible lead.",
">\n\nWhy does “We need to get the homeless off the streets.” always sound so progressive in Europe and sinister in the US?",
">\n\nIn the US it often means just put them in prison instead of shoving them in cramped shelters",
">\n\nCapitalism can never solve homelessness, bc they dont make enough money from it. Hence why CA, NY, and WA continue to struggle with it, while places like Missouri make it even worse. There are no pro-homeless states in the US.",
">\n\nThey make a shitload of money off of it lol. Homeless shelters get paid for every bed they have filled. I used to work at a shelter and they’d let dudes stay who were clearly breaking rules or a danger to others because if they have unfilled beds they don’t receive as much money from the government. The entire game is keeping the shelter full, taking the money they give per person (let’s say the budget calls for 200 bucks of resources per resident) they do anything and everything to supply the lowest acceptable level of resources allowed, at as far under that 200 dollar limit as they can. Then they keep the excess money.",
">\n\nShelters aren’t solving homelessness. But good point on how most of our systems designed to help people are still just money making systems at the end of the day.",
">\n\nSpoiler alert, you can’t solve homelessness unless you can somehow force people to not be mentally ill or drug addicted. At the end of the day it has to start with the homeless person. No amount of forcing someone to do x y or z will solve this",
">\n\nCrimes committed against the homeless are already largely ignored. It’s only a matter of time before being homeless becomes grounds for sanctioned murder, like it’s fucking pest control.",
">\n\nLMAO I was homeless for a while and it already is.\nLots of unhoused folks particularly women go missing and never show back up.",
">\n\nThey'll put them in warehouses run by Geo Corp, then bill you, the taxpayer $750 per day for that \"service\". All of this nonsense, so that America can avoid looking at the reasons why there are so many homeless, and how to get someone back on their feet once homeless. It's dystopian.",
">\n\nHave to keep taxpayer dollars going to for-profit prisons somehow",
">\n\nThe choice is to either stay in a homeless shelter full of addicts and mentally ill people, or...? \nIt's so odd to me that we live in a \"free country\" but you can't even live in the woods because the woods is owned by somebody else.",
">\n\nImagine if we tried actually helping people for once instead of just punishing them.",
">\n\nOh you’re broke! Let’s just help you out with a little prison time too. It’s what Jesus would do.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nCities across the country have seen a backlash to attempts by officials to remove homeless encampments or limit where unhoused people can camp.\nProtesters marched through the downtown Chicago area in November to protest against the city's announcement that donated winterized tents for homeless people had to be removed for street cleaning, reported the Chicago Tribune.\nY Robelo, founder of the non-profit Feeding People Through Plants, provided the tents and criticized the city's treatment of homeless people.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: people^#1 city^#2 law^#3 homeless^#4 new^#5",
">\n\n‘Anti-homeless’ laws sound as stupid as ‘anti-sneezing’ laws. \nJust because you rule out something it doesn’t mean it ceases to exist, when the ‘offenders’ have little power over it.",
">\n\nIt’s almost like there’s money to be made in the privatisation of prisons or something.",
">\n\nJust making it illegal to be poor now so they can fill prisons and get slave labor from the inmates, on top of taking away their rights in general and making a profit from it."
] |
>
If there wasn't so much financial inequality, affordable housing, decent wages and healthcare for all, there wouldn't be anti-homeless laws. Jfc this is not hard but due to corruption and a broken system, here we are. | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised.",
">\n\nWhy didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty!",
">\n\nJust like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s",
">\n\nWhen you talk to random people on reddit about homelessness you realize that unfortunately when many people say the \"homelessness problem\", they don't mean that there are homeless people, they mean that they have to see homeless people.\nMany people seem perfectly happy with out of sight out of mind when it comes to the homeless.",
">\n\nTypical conversation with a liberal (I'm a socdem) about homelessness:\nLiberal: \"the homelessness epidemic is inhumane. We must help these people.\"\nMe: \"yes, I agree with you 100%. Let's start a fundraiser to convert that old building into a homeless shelter or low income housing, so that-\"\nLiberal: \"ewwwww no, I don't want homeless people here. The property value of my family's house will go down and I don't wanna see a bunch of tweakers at night.\"\nMe: \".......... alright, I'll just do it myself. Sorry for bothering you.\"",
">\n\nHonest question, do you own a home yourself?",
">\n\nI'll answer your question if you tell me why you're asking. Seems like bait/a trap to me.",
">\n\nDude’s gonna pull the “WhY aReN’t YoU hOuSiNg ThEm??!!111",
">\n\nI own a home (well the bank does, but y'know), and I'd fully endorse using a nearby house as a shelter for people experiencing homelessness. Would it potentially lower property values? Maybe, but I don't really care. Would it potentially mean more petty crime in the area? Also maybe yes, but there are things that could be done to counter that, and the whole point is lifting people out of poverty so that crime isn't something they feel they need to resort to. So yeah, bring on the residential shelters!",
">\n\n\"We must solve homelessness by criminalizing it.\"\n\"We must stop abortion by outlawing it.\"\n\"You can't stop gun violence by outlawing guns!\"",
">\n\nDisgusting, inhumane and incredibly immoral. How is walking the earth and poverty a crime?",
">\n\n\nHow is walking the earth and poverty a crime?\n\nWhat's even funnier is that these people claim to be Christians, followers of a man who famously had \"no place to lay his head\" and traveled around mooching off of his followers.",
">\n\nMatthews 25:41-45",
">\n\nThe pillars of democracy are: robust public education, independent journalism, human rights, equality and justice. Promote the pillars of democracy in your house and amongst your friends. Talk about them, talk about how to re-establish them, how to amplify them. Get involved in every democratic process in your community too. Defend democracy good people - it is under direct attack. Rise up and defend democracy and the United States itself from this fascist Republican attack.",
">\n\nHow is the law not fair here? It is equally illegal for both the rich and poor to sleep under a bridge!\n/s",
">\n\nSomething tells me rich people still would never be prosecuted or fined for this lol",
">\n\nFor a party that prides itself on “Christian values” Republicans get off on some really evil shit.",
">\n\nDems involuntarily committing people isnt much better. It's not just a Blue v Red thing. It's a Rich v Poor thing.",
">\n\nOk but that's Eric Adams, he's a cop and a conservative, he's abnormal for Democrats.",
">\n\nGavin Newsome isnt (supposedly) conservative. Neither is Portland, where forced hospitalization of the homeless is also happening.\nAnd really, if he was abnormal, wed see the really blue places creating homes for the homeless. Please god tell me you have proof that I’m wrong though. I would happily be wrong about this.",
">\n\nOk I'll grant you that, but I would hope that these jurisdictions and leaders would not follow that particularly reprehensible lead.",
">\n\nWhy does “We need to get the homeless off the streets.” always sound so progressive in Europe and sinister in the US?",
">\n\nIn the US it often means just put them in prison instead of shoving them in cramped shelters",
">\n\nCapitalism can never solve homelessness, bc they dont make enough money from it. Hence why CA, NY, and WA continue to struggle with it, while places like Missouri make it even worse. There are no pro-homeless states in the US.",
">\n\nThey make a shitload of money off of it lol. Homeless shelters get paid for every bed they have filled. I used to work at a shelter and they’d let dudes stay who were clearly breaking rules or a danger to others because if they have unfilled beds they don’t receive as much money from the government. The entire game is keeping the shelter full, taking the money they give per person (let’s say the budget calls for 200 bucks of resources per resident) they do anything and everything to supply the lowest acceptable level of resources allowed, at as far under that 200 dollar limit as they can. Then they keep the excess money.",
">\n\nShelters aren’t solving homelessness. But good point on how most of our systems designed to help people are still just money making systems at the end of the day.",
">\n\nSpoiler alert, you can’t solve homelessness unless you can somehow force people to not be mentally ill or drug addicted. At the end of the day it has to start with the homeless person. No amount of forcing someone to do x y or z will solve this",
">\n\nCrimes committed against the homeless are already largely ignored. It’s only a matter of time before being homeless becomes grounds for sanctioned murder, like it’s fucking pest control.",
">\n\nLMAO I was homeless for a while and it already is.\nLots of unhoused folks particularly women go missing and never show back up.",
">\n\nThey'll put them in warehouses run by Geo Corp, then bill you, the taxpayer $750 per day for that \"service\". All of this nonsense, so that America can avoid looking at the reasons why there are so many homeless, and how to get someone back on their feet once homeless. It's dystopian.",
">\n\nHave to keep taxpayer dollars going to for-profit prisons somehow",
">\n\nThe choice is to either stay in a homeless shelter full of addicts and mentally ill people, or...? \nIt's so odd to me that we live in a \"free country\" but you can't even live in the woods because the woods is owned by somebody else.",
">\n\nImagine if we tried actually helping people for once instead of just punishing them.",
">\n\nOh you’re broke! Let’s just help you out with a little prison time too. It’s what Jesus would do.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nCities across the country have seen a backlash to attempts by officials to remove homeless encampments or limit where unhoused people can camp.\nProtesters marched through the downtown Chicago area in November to protest against the city's announcement that donated winterized tents for homeless people had to be removed for street cleaning, reported the Chicago Tribune.\nY Robelo, founder of the non-profit Feeding People Through Plants, provided the tents and criticized the city's treatment of homeless people.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: people^#1 city^#2 law^#3 homeless^#4 new^#5",
">\n\n‘Anti-homeless’ laws sound as stupid as ‘anti-sneezing’ laws. \nJust because you rule out something it doesn’t mean it ceases to exist, when the ‘offenders’ have little power over it.",
">\n\nIt’s almost like there’s money to be made in the privatisation of prisons or something.",
">\n\nJust making it illegal to be poor now so they can fill prisons and get slave labor from the inmates, on top of taking away their rights in general and making a profit from it.",
">\n\nWhen their prison budgets blow up at least they will have solved the homeless problem, by actually housing in a WAY more expensive way.\nLocking people is not a solution, it is cruel but that’s republicans."
] |
>
So damned wrong!!!! | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised.",
">\n\nWhy didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty!",
">\n\nJust like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s",
">\n\nWhen you talk to random people on reddit about homelessness you realize that unfortunately when many people say the \"homelessness problem\", they don't mean that there are homeless people, they mean that they have to see homeless people.\nMany people seem perfectly happy with out of sight out of mind when it comes to the homeless.",
">\n\nTypical conversation with a liberal (I'm a socdem) about homelessness:\nLiberal: \"the homelessness epidemic is inhumane. We must help these people.\"\nMe: \"yes, I agree with you 100%. Let's start a fundraiser to convert that old building into a homeless shelter or low income housing, so that-\"\nLiberal: \"ewwwww no, I don't want homeless people here. The property value of my family's house will go down and I don't wanna see a bunch of tweakers at night.\"\nMe: \".......... alright, I'll just do it myself. Sorry for bothering you.\"",
">\n\nHonest question, do you own a home yourself?",
">\n\nI'll answer your question if you tell me why you're asking. Seems like bait/a trap to me.",
">\n\nDude’s gonna pull the “WhY aReN’t YoU hOuSiNg ThEm??!!111",
">\n\nI own a home (well the bank does, but y'know), and I'd fully endorse using a nearby house as a shelter for people experiencing homelessness. Would it potentially lower property values? Maybe, but I don't really care. Would it potentially mean more petty crime in the area? Also maybe yes, but there are things that could be done to counter that, and the whole point is lifting people out of poverty so that crime isn't something they feel they need to resort to. So yeah, bring on the residential shelters!",
">\n\n\"We must solve homelessness by criminalizing it.\"\n\"We must stop abortion by outlawing it.\"\n\"You can't stop gun violence by outlawing guns!\"",
">\n\nDisgusting, inhumane and incredibly immoral. How is walking the earth and poverty a crime?",
">\n\n\nHow is walking the earth and poverty a crime?\n\nWhat's even funnier is that these people claim to be Christians, followers of a man who famously had \"no place to lay his head\" and traveled around mooching off of his followers.",
">\n\nMatthews 25:41-45",
">\n\nThe pillars of democracy are: robust public education, independent journalism, human rights, equality and justice. Promote the pillars of democracy in your house and amongst your friends. Talk about them, talk about how to re-establish them, how to amplify them. Get involved in every democratic process in your community too. Defend democracy good people - it is under direct attack. Rise up and defend democracy and the United States itself from this fascist Republican attack.",
">\n\nHow is the law not fair here? It is equally illegal for both the rich and poor to sleep under a bridge!\n/s",
">\n\nSomething tells me rich people still would never be prosecuted or fined for this lol",
">\n\nFor a party that prides itself on “Christian values” Republicans get off on some really evil shit.",
">\n\nDems involuntarily committing people isnt much better. It's not just a Blue v Red thing. It's a Rich v Poor thing.",
">\n\nOk but that's Eric Adams, he's a cop and a conservative, he's abnormal for Democrats.",
">\n\nGavin Newsome isnt (supposedly) conservative. Neither is Portland, where forced hospitalization of the homeless is also happening.\nAnd really, if he was abnormal, wed see the really blue places creating homes for the homeless. Please god tell me you have proof that I’m wrong though. I would happily be wrong about this.",
">\n\nOk I'll grant you that, but I would hope that these jurisdictions and leaders would not follow that particularly reprehensible lead.",
">\n\nWhy does “We need to get the homeless off the streets.” always sound so progressive in Europe and sinister in the US?",
">\n\nIn the US it often means just put them in prison instead of shoving them in cramped shelters",
">\n\nCapitalism can never solve homelessness, bc they dont make enough money from it. Hence why CA, NY, and WA continue to struggle with it, while places like Missouri make it even worse. There are no pro-homeless states in the US.",
">\n\nThey make a shitload of money off of it lol. Homeless shelters get paid for every bed they have filled. I used to work at a shelter and they’d let dudes stay who were clearly breaking rules or a danger to others because if they have unfilled beds they don’t receive as much money from the government. The entire game is keeping the shelter full, taking the money they give per person (let’s say the budget calls for 200 bucks of resources per resident) they do anything and everything to supply the lowest acceptable level of resources allowed, at as far under that 200 dollar limit as they can. Then they keep the excess money.",
">\n\nShelters aren’t solving homelessness. But good point on how most of our systems designed to help people are still just money making systems at the end of the day.",
">\n\nSpoiler alert, you can’t solve homelessness unless you can somehow force people to not be mentally ill or drug addicted. At the end of the day it has to start with the homeless person. No amount of forcing someone to do x y or z will solve this",
">\n\nCrimes committed against the homeless are already largely ignored. It’s only a matter of time before being homeless becomes grounds for sanctioned murder, like it’s fucking pest control.",
">\n\nLMAO I was homeless for a while and it already is.\nLots of unhoused folks particularly women go missing and never show back up.",
">\n\nThey'll put them in warehouses run by Geo Corp, then bill you, the taxpayer $750 per day for that \"service\". All of this nonsense, so that America can avoid looking at the reasons why there are so many homeless, and how to get someone back on their feet once homeless. It's dystopian.",
">\n\nHave to keep taxpayer dollars going to for-profit prisons somehow",
">\n\nThe choice is to either stay in a homeless shelter full of addicts and mentally ill people, or...? \nIt's so odd to me that we live in a \"free country\" but you can't even live in the woods because the woods is owned by somebody else.",
">\n\nImagine if we tried actually helping people for once instead of just punishing them.",
">\n\nOh you’re broke! Let’s just help you out with a little prison time too. It’s what Jesus would do.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nCities across the country have seen a backlash to attempts by officials to remove homeless encampments or limit where unhoused people can camp.\nProtesters marched through the downtown Chicago area in November to protest against the city's announcement that donated winterized tents for homeless people had to be removed for street cleaning, reported the Chicago Tribune.\nY Robelo, founder of the non-profit Feeding People Through Plants, provided the tents and criticized the city's treatment of homeless people.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: people^#1 city^#2 law^#3 homeless^#4 new^#5",
">\n\n‘Anti-homeless’ laws sound as stupid as ‘anti-sneezing’ laws. \nJust because you rule out something it doesn’t mean it ceases to exist, when the ‘offenders’ have little power over it.",
">\n\nIt’s almost like there’s money to be made in the privatisation of prisons or something.",
">\n\nJust making it illegal to be poor now so they can fill prisons and get slave labor from the inmates, on top of taking away their rights in general and making a profit from it.",
">\n\nWhen their prison budgets blow up at least they will have solved the homeless problem, by actually housing in a WAY more expensive way.\nLocking people is not a solution, it is cruel but that’s republicans.",
">\n\nIf there wasn't so much financial inequality, affordable housing, decent wages and healthcare for all, there wouldn't be anti-homeless laws. Jfc this is not hard but due to corruption and a broken system, here we are."
] |
>
This is a cash grab to fill private prisons. | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised.",
">\n\nWhy didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty!",
">\n\nJust like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s",
">\n\nWhen you talk to random people on reddit about homelessness you realize that unfortunately when many people say the \"homelessness problem\", they don't mean that there are homeless people, they mean that they have to see homeless people.\nMany people seem perfectly happy with out of sight out of mind when it comes to the homeless.",
">\n\nTypical conversation with a liberal (I'm a socdem) about homelessness:\nLiberal: \"the homelessness epidemic is inhumane. We must help these people.\"\nMe: \"yes, I agree with you 100%. Let's start a fundraiser to convert that old building into a homeless shelter or low income housing, so that-\"\nLiberal: \"ewwwww no, I don't want homeless people here. The property value of my family's house will go down and I don't wanna see a bunch of tweakers at night.\"\nMe: \".......... alright, I'll just do it myself. Sorry for bothering you.\"",
">\n\nHonest question, do you own a home yourself?",
">\n\nI'll answer your question if you tell me why you're asking. Seems like bait/a trap to me.",
">\n\nDude’s gonna pull the “WhY aReN’t YoU hOuSiNg ThEm??!!111",
">\n\nI own a home (well the bank does, but y'know), and I'd fully endorse using a nearby house as a shelter for people experiencing homelessness. Would it potentially lower property values? Maybe, but I don't really care. Would it potentially mean more petty crime in the area? Also maybe yes, but there are things that could be done to counter that, and the whole point is lifting people out of poverty so that crime isn't something they feel they need to resort to. So yeah, bring on the residential shelters!",
">\n\n\"We must solve homelessness by criminalizing it.\"\n\"We must stop abortion by outlawing it.\"\n\"You can't stop gun violence by outlawing guns!\"",
">\n\nDisgusting, inhumane and incredibly immoral. How is walking the earth and poverty a crime?",
">\n\n\nHow is walking the earth and poverty a crime?\n\nWhat's even funnier is that these people claim to be Christians, followers of a man who famously had \"no place to lay his head\" and traveled around mooching off of his followers.",
">\n\nMatthews 25:41-45",
">\n\nThe pillars of democracy are: robust public education, independent journalism, human rights, equality and justice. Promote the pillars of democracy in your house and amongst your friends. Talk about them, talk about how to re-establish them, how to amplify them. Get involved in every democratic process in your community too. Defend democracy good people - it is under direct attack. Rise up and defend democracy and the United States itself from this fascist Republican attack.",
">\n\nHow is the law not fair here? It is equally illegal for both the rich and poor to sleep under a bridge!\n/s",
">\n\nSomething tells me rich people still would never be prosecuted or fined for this lol",
">\n\nFor a party that prides itself on “Christian values” Republicans get off on some really evil shit.",
">\n\nDems involuntarily committing people isnt much better. It's not just a Blue v Red thing. It's a Rich v Poor thing.",
">\n\nOk but that's Eric Adams, he's a cop and a conservative, he's abnormal for Democrats.",
">\n\nGavin Newsome isnt (supposedly) conservative. Neither is Portland, where forced hospitalization of the homeless is also happening.\nAnd really, if he was abnormal, wed see the really blue places creating homes for the homeless. Please god tell me you have proof that I’m wrong though. I would happily be wrong about this.",
">\n\nOk I'll grant you that, but I would hope that these jurisdictions and leaders would not follow that particularly reprehensible lead.",
">\n\nWhy does “We need to get the homeless off the streets.” always sound so progressive in Europe and sinister in the US?",
">\n\nIn the US it often means just put them in prison instead of shoving them in cramped shelters",
">\n\nCapitalism can never solve homelessness, bc they dont make enough money from it. Hence why CA, NY, and WA continue to struggle with it, while places like Missouri make it even worse. There are no pro-homeless states in the US.",
">\n\nThey make a shitload of money off of it lol. Homeless shelters get paid for every bed they have filled. I used to work at a shelter and they’d let dudes stay who were clearly breaking rules or a danger to others because if they have unfilled beds they don’t receive as much money from the government. The entire game is keeping the shelter full, taking the money they give per person (let’s say the budget calls for 200 bucks of resources per resident) they do anything and everything to supply the lowest acceptable level of resources allowed, at as far under that 200 dollar limit as they can. Then they keep the excess money.",
">\n\nShelters aren’t solving homelessness. But good point on how most of our systems designed to help people are still just money making systems at the end of the day.",
">\n\nSpoiler alert, you can’t solve homelessness unless you can somehow force people to not be mentally ill or drug addicted. At the end of the day it has to start with the homeless person. No amount of forcing someone to do x y or z will solve this",
">\n\nCrimes committed against the homeless are already largely ignored. It’s only a matter of time before being homeless becomes grounds for sanctioned murder, like it’s fucking pest control.",
">\n\nLMAO I was homeless for a while and it already is.\nLots of unhoused folks particularly women go missing and never show back up.",
">\n\nThey'll put them in warehouses run by Geo Corp, then bill you, the taxpayer $750 per day for that \"service\". All of this nonsense, so that America can avoid looking at the reasons why there are so many homeless, and how to get someone back on their feet once homeless. It's dystopian.",
">\n\nHave to keep taxpayer dollars going to for-profit prisons somehow",
">\n\nThe choice is to either stay in a homeless shelter full of addicts and mentally ill people, or...? \nIt's so odd to me that we live in a \"free country\" but you can't even live in the woods because the woods is owned by somebody else.",
">\n\nImagine if we tried actually helping people for once instead of just punishing them.",
">\n\nOh you’re broke! Let’s just help you out with a little prison time too. It’s what Jesus would do.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nCities across the country have seen a backlash to attempts by officials to remove homeless encampments or limit where unhoused people can camp.\nProtesters marched through the downtown Chicago area in November to protest against the city's announcement that donated winterized tents for homeless people had to be removed for street cleaning, reported the Chicago Tribune.\nY Robelo, founder of the non-profit Feeding People Through Plants, provided the tents and criticized the city's treatment of homeless people.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: people^#1 city^#2 law^#3 homeless^#4 new^#5",
">\n\n‘Anti-homeless’ laws sound as stupid as ‘anti-sneezing’ laws. \nJust because you rule out something it doesn’t mean it ceases to exist, when the ‘offenders’ have little power over it.",
">\n\nIt’s almost like there’s money to be made in the privatisation of prisons or something.",
">\n\nJust making it illegal to be poor now so they can fill prisons and get slave labor from the inmates, on top of taking away their rights in general and making a profit from it.",
">\n\nWhen their prison budgets blow up at least they will have solved the homeless problem, by actually housing in a WAY more expensive way.\nLocking people is not a solution, it is cruel but that’s republicans.",
">\n\nIf there wasn't so much financial inequality, affordable housing, decent wages and healthcare for all, there wouldn't be anti-homeless laws. Jfc this is not hard but due to corruption and a broken system, here we are.",
">\n\nSo damned wrong!!!!"
] |
>
Im not sure about other areas laws but up here in the PNW the new laws are going after large camp sites, and areas of increased crime/violence.
More notably the only ones in effect that make it illegal to sleep out in public is if there is a support center within walking distance and it has enough capacity to house the person.
We get a lot of people echoing the sentiment that its an attack on the homeless and what not but when you have someone setup a tent behind your backyard or see your family threatened youll change your tune too. | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised.",
">\n\nWhy didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty!",
">\n\nJust like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s",
">\n\nWhen you talk to random people on reddit about homelessness you realize that unfortunately when many people say the \"homelessness problem\", they don't mean that there are homeless people, they mean that they have to see homeless people.\nMany people seem perfectly happy with out of sight out of mind when it comes to the homeless.",
">\n\nTypical conversation with a liberal (I'm a socdem) about homelessness:\nLiberal: \"the homelessness epidemic is inhumane. We must help these people.\"\nMe: \"yes, I agree with you 100%. Let's start a fundraiser to convert that old building into a homeless shelter or low income housing, so that-\"\nLiberal: \"ewwwww no, I don't want homeless people here. The property value of my family's house will go down and I don't wanna see a bunch of tweakers at night.\"\nMe: \".......... alright, I'll just do it myself. Sorry for bothering you.\"",
">\n\nHonest question, do you own a home yourself?",
">\n\nI'll answer your question if you tell me why you're asking. Seems like bait/a trap to me.",
">\n\nDude’s gonna pull the “WhY aReN’t YoU hOuSiNg ThEm??!!111",
">\n\nI own a home (well the bank does, but y'know), and I'd fully endorse using a nearby house as a shelter for people experiencing homelessness. Would it potentially lower property values? Maybe, but I don't really care. Would it potentially mean more petty crime in the area? Also maybe yes, but there are things that could be done to counter that, and the whole point is lifting people out of poverty so that crime isn't something they feel they need to resort to. So yeah, bring on the residential shelters!",
">\n\n\"We must solve homelessness by criminalizing it.\"\n\"We must stop abortion by outlawing it.\"\n\"You can't stop gun violence by outlawing guns!\"",
">\n\nDisgusting, inhumane and incredibly immoral. How is walking the earth and poverty a crime?",
">\n\n\nHow is walking the earth and poverty a crime?\n\nWhat's even funnier is that these people claim to be Christians, followers of a man who famously had \"no place to lay his head\" and traveled around mooching off of his followers.",
">\n\nMatthews 25:41-45",
">\n\nThe pillars of democracy are: robust public education, independent journalism, human rights, equality and justice. Promote the pillars of democracy in your house and amongst your friends. Talk about them, talk about how to re-establish them, how to amplify them. Get involved in every democratic process in your community too. Defend democracy good people - it is under direct attack. Rise up and defend democracy and the United States itself from this fascist Republican attack.",
">\n\nHow is the law not fair here? It is equally illegal for both the rich and poor to sleep under a bridge!\n/s",
">\n\nSomething tells me rich people still would never be prosecuted or fined for this lol",
">\n\nFor a party that prides itself on “Christian values” Republicans get off on some really evil shit.",
">\n\nDems involuntarily committing people isnt much better. It's not just a Blue v Red thing. It's a Rich v Poor thing.",
">\n\nOk but that's Eric Adams, he's a cop and a conservative, he's abnormal for Democrats.",
">\n\nGavin Newsome isnt (supposedly) conservative. Neither is Portland, where forced hospitalization of the homeless is also happening.\nAnd really, if he was abnormal, wed see the really blue places creating homes for the homeless. Please god tell me you have proof that I’m wrong though. I would happily be wrong about this.",
">\n\nOk I'll grant you that, but I would hope that these jurisdictions and leaders would not follow that particularly reprehensible lead.",
">\n\nWhy does “We need to get the homeless off the streets.” always sound so progressive in Europe and sinister in the US?",
">\n\nIn the US it often means just put them in prison instead of shoving them in cramped shelters",
">\n\nCapitalism can never solve homelessness, bc they dont make enough money from it. Hence why CA, NY, and WA continue to struggle with it, while places like Missouri make it even worse. There are no pro-homeless states in the US.",
">\n\nThey make a shitload of money off of it lol. Homeless shelters get paid for every bed they have filled. I used to work at a shelter and they’d let dudes stay who were clearly breaking rules or a danger to others because if they have unfilled beds they don’t receive as much money from the government. The entire game is keeping the shelter full, taking the money they give per person (let’s say the budget calls for 200 bucks of resources per resident) they do anything and everything to supply the lowest acceptable level of resources allowed, at as far under that 200 dollar limit as they can. Then they keep the excess money.",
">\n\nShelters aren’t solving homelessness. But good point on how most of our systems designed to help people are still just money making systems at the end of the day.",
">\n\nSpoiler alert, you can’t solve homelessness unless you can somehow force people to not be mentally ill or drug addicted. At the end of the day it has to start with the homeless person. No amount of forcing someone to do x y or z will solve this",
">\n\nCrimes committed against the homeless are already largely ignored. It’s only a matter of time before being homeless becomes grounds for sanctioned murder, like it’s fucking pest control.",
">\n\nLMAO I was homeless for a while and it already is.\nLots of unhoused folks particularly women go missing and never show back up.",
">\n\nThey'll put them in warehouses run by Geo Corp, then bill you, the taxpayer $750 per day for that \"service\". All of this nonsense, so that America can avoid looking at the reasons why there are so many homeless, and how to get someone back on their feet once homeless. It's dystopian.",
">\n\nHave to keep taxpayer dollars going to for-profit prisons somehow",
">\n\nThe choice is to either stay in a homeless shelter full of addicts and mentally ill people, or...? \nIt's so odd to me that we live in a \"free country\" but you can't even live in the woods because the woods is owned by somebody else.",
">\n\nImagine if we tried actually helping people for once instead of just punishing them.",
">\n\nOh you’re broke! Let’s just help you out with a little prison time too. It’s what Jesus would do.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nCities across the country have seen a backlash to attempts by officials to remove homeless encampments or limit where unhoused people can camp.\nProtesters marched through the downtown Chicago area in November to protest against the city's announcement that donated winterized tents for homeless people had to be removed for street cleaning, reported the Chicago Tribune.\nY Robelo, founder of the non-profit Feeding People Through Plants, provided the tents and criticized the city's treatment of homeless people.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: people^#1 city^#2 law^#3 homeless^#4 new^#5",
">\n\n‘Anti-homeless’ laws sound as stupid as ‘anti-sneezing’ laws. \nJust because you rule out something it doesn’t mean it ceases to exist, when the ‘offenders’ have little power over it.",
">\n\nIt’s almost like there’s money to be made in the privatisation of prisons or something.",
">\n\nJust making it illegal to be poor now so they can fill prisons and get slave labor from the inmates, on top of taking away their rights in general and making a profit from it.",
">\n\nWhen their prison budgets blow up at least they will have solved the homeless problem, by actually housing in a WAY more expensive way.\nLocking people is not a solution, it is cruel but that’s republicans.",
">\n\nIf there wasn't so much financial inequality, affordable housing, decent wages and healthcare for all, there wouldn't be anti-homeless laws. Jfc this is not hard but due to corruption and a broken system, here we are.",
">\n\nSo damned wrong!!!!",
">\n\nThis is a cash grab to fill private prisons."
] |
>
If you set up actual housing for them then itd stop being seen as an attack. | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised.",
">\n\nWhy didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty!",
">\n\nJust like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s",
">\n\nWhen you talk to random people on reddit about homelessness you realize that unfortunately when many people say the \"homelessness problem\", they don't mean that there are homeless people, they mean that they have to see homeless people.\nMany people seem perfectly happy with out of sight out of mind when it comes to the homeless.",
">\n\nTypical conversation with a liberal (I'm a socdem) about homelessness:\nLiberal: \"the homelessness epidemic is inhumane. We must help these people.\"\nMe: \"yes, I agree with you 100%. Let's start a fundraiser to convert that old building into a homeless shelter or low income housing, so that-\"\nLiberal: \"ewwwww no, I don't want homeless people here. The property value of my family's house will go down and I don't wanna see a bunch of tweakers at night.\"\nMe: \".......... alright, I'll just do it myself. Sorry for bothering you.\"",
">\n\nHonest question, do you own a home yourself?",
">\n\nI'll answer your question if you tell me why you're asking. Seems like bait/a trap to me.",
">\n\nDude’s gonna pull the “WhY aReN’t YoU hOuSiNg ThEm??!!111",
">\n\nI own a home (well the bank does, but y'know), and I'd fully endorse using a nearby house as a shelter for people experiencing homelessness. Would it potentially lower property values? Maybe, but I don't really care. Would it potentially mean more petty crime in the area? Also maybe yes, but there are things that could be done to counter that, and the whole point is lifting people out of poverty so that crime isn't something they feel they need to resort to. So yeah, bring on the residential shelters!",
">\n\n\"We must solve homelessness by criminalizing it.\"\n\"We must stop abortion by outlawing it.\"\n\"You can't stop gun violence by outlawing guns!\"",
">\n\nDisgusting, inhumane and incredibly immoral. How is walking the earth and poverty a crime?",
">\n\n\nHow is walking the earth and poverty a crime?\n\nWhat's even funnier is that these people claim to be Christians, followers of a man who famously had \"no place to lay his head\" and traveled around mooching off of his followers.",
">\n\nMatthews 25:41-45",
">\n\nThe pillars of democracy are: robust public education, independent journalism, human rights, equality and justice. Promote the pillars of democracy in your house and amongst your friends. Talk about them, talk about how to re-establish them, how to amplify them. Get involved in every democratic process in your community too. Defend democracy good people - it is under direct attack. Rise up and defend democracy and the United States itself from this fascist Republican attack.",
">\n\nHow is the law not fair here? It is equally illegal for both the rich and poor to sleep under a bridge!\n/s",
">\n\nSomething tells me rich people still would never be prosecuted or fined for this lol",
">\n\nFor a party that prides itself on “Christian values” Republicans get off on some really evil shit.",
">\n\nDems involuntarily committing people isnt much better. It's not just a Blue v Red thing. It's a Rich v Poor thing.",
">\n\nOk but that's Eric Adams, he's a cop and a conservative, he's abnormal for Democrats.",
">\n\nGavin Newsome isnt (supposedly) conservative. Neither is Portland, where forced hospitalization of the homeless is also happening.\nAnd really, if he was abnormal, wed see the really blue places creating homes for the homeless. Please god tell me you have proof that I’m wrong though. I would happily be wrong about this.",
">\n\nOk I'll grant you that, but I would hope that these jurisdictions and leaders would not follow that particularly reprehensible lead.",
">\n\nWhy does “We need to get the homeless off the streets.” always sound so progressive in Europe and sinister in the US?",
">\n\nIn the US it often means just put them in prison instead of shoving them in cramped shelters",
">\n\nCapitalism can never solve homelessness, bc they dont make enough money from it. Hence why CA, NY, and WA continue to struggle with it, while places like Missouri make it even worse. There are no pro-homeless states in the US.",
">\n\nThey make a shitload of money off of it lol. Homeless shelters get paid for every bed they have filled. I used to work at a shelter and they’d let dudes stay who were clearly breaking rules or a danger to others because if they have unfilled beds they don’t receive as much money from the government. The entire game is keeping the shelter full, taking the money they give per person (let’s say the budget calls for 200 bucks of resources per resident) they do anything and everything to supply the lowest acceptable level of resources allowed, at as far under that 200 dollar limit as they can. Then they keep the excess money.",
">\n\nShelters aren’t solving homelessness. But good point on how most of our systems designed to help people are still just money making systems at the end of the day.",
">\n\nSpoiler alert, you can’t solve homelessness unless you can somehow force people to not be mentally ill or drug addicted. At the end of the day it has to start with the homeless person. No amount of forcing someone to do x y or z will solve this",
">\n\nCrimes committed against the homeless are already largely ignored. It’s only a matter of time before being homeless becomes grounds for sanctioned murder, like it’s fucking pest control.",
">\n\nLMAO I was homeless for a while and it already is.\nLots of unhoused folks particularly women go missing and never show back up.",
">\n\nThey'll put them in warehouses run by Geo Corp, then bill you, the taxpayer $750 per day for that \"service\". All of this nonsense, so that America can avoid looking at the reasons why there are so many homeless, and how to get someone back on their feet once homeless. It's dystopian.",
">\n\nHave to keep taxpayer dollars going to for-profit prisons somehow",
">\n\nThe choice is to either stay in a homeless shelter full of addicts and mentally ill people, or...? \nIt's so odd to me that we live in a \"free country\" but you can't even live in the woods because the woods is owned by somebody else.",
">\n\nImagine if we tried actually helping people for once instead of just punishing them.",
">\n\nOh you’re broke! Let’s just help you out with a little prison time too. It’s what Jesus would do.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nCities across the country have seen a backlash to attempts by officials to remove homeless encampments or limit where unhoused people can camp.\nProtesters marched through the downtown Chicago area in November to protest against the city's announcement that donated winterized tents for homeless people had to be removed for street cleaning, reported the Chicago Tribune.\nY Robelo, founder of the non-profit Feeding People Through Plants, provided the tents and criticized the city's treatment of homeless people.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: people^#1 city^#2 law^#3 homeless^#4 new^#5",
">\n\n‘Anti-homeless’ laws sound as stupid as ‘anti-sneezing’ laws. \nJust because you rule out something it doesn’t mean it ceases to exist, when the ‘offenders’ have little power over it.",
">\n\nIt’s almost like there’s money to be made in the privatisation of prisons or something.",
">\n\nJust making it illegal to be poor now so they can fill prisons and get slave labor from the inmates, on top of taking away their rights in general and making a profit from it.",
">\n\nWhen their prison budgets blow up at least they will have solved the homeless problem, by actually housing in a WAY more expensive way.\nLocking people is not a solution, it is cruel but that’s republicans.",
">\n\nIf there wasn't so much financial inequality, affordable housing, decent wages and healthcare for all, there wouldn't be anti-homeless laws. Jfc this is not hard but due to corruption and a broken system, here we are.",
">\n\nSo damned wrong!!!!",
">\n\nThis is a cash grab to fill private prisons.",
">\n\nIm not sure about other areas laws but up here in the PNW the new laws are going after large camp sites, and areas of increased crime/violence. \nMore notably the only ones in effect that make it illegal to sleep out in public is if there is a support center within walking distance and it has enough capacity to house the person. \nWe get a lot of people echoing the sentiment that its an attack on the homeless and what not but when you have someone setup a tent behind your backyard or see your family threatened youll change your tune too."
] |
>
Are you volunteering your backyard for their housing?
Because no one else is. | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised.",
">\n\nWhy didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty!",
">\n\nJust like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s",
">\n\nWhen you talk to random people on reddit about homelessness you realize that unfortunately when many people say the \"homelessness problem\", they don't mean that there are homeless people, they mean that they have to see homeless people.\nMany people seem perfectly happy with out of sight out of mind when it comes to the homeless.",
">\n\nTypical conversation with a liberal (I'm a socdem) about homelessness:\nLiberal: \"the homelessness epidemic is inhumane. We must help these people.\"\nMe: \"yes, I agree with you 100%. Let's start a fundraiser to convert that old building into a homeless shelter or low income housing, so that-\"\nLiberal: \"ewwwww no, I don't want homeless people here. The property value of my family's house will go down and I don't wanna see a bunch of tweakers at night.\"\nMe: \".......... alright, I'll just do it myself. Sorry for bothering you.\"",
">\n\nHonest question, do you own a home yourself?",
">\n\nI'll answer your question if you tell me why you're asking. Seems like bait/a trap to me.",
">\n\nDude’s gonna pull the “WhY aReN’t YoU hOuSiNg ThEm??!!111",
">\n\nI own a home (well the bank does, but y'know), and I'd fully endorse using a nearby house as a shelter for people experiencing homelessness. Would it potentially lower property values? Maybe, but I don't really care. Would it potentially mean more petty crime in the area? Also maybe yes, but there are things that could be done to counter that, and the whole point is lifting people out of poverty so that crime isn't something they feel they need to resort to. So yeah, bring on the residential shelters!",
">\n\n\"We must solve homelessness by criminalizing it.\"\n\"We must stop abortion by outlawing it.\"\n\"You can't stop gun violence by outlawing guns!\"",
">\n\nDisgusting, inhumane and incredibly immoral. How is walking the earth and poverty a crime?",
">\n\n\nHow is walking the earth and poverty a crime?\n\nWhat's even funnier is that these people claim to be Christians, followers of a man who famously had \"no place to lay his head\" and traveled around mooching off of his followers.",
">\n\nMatthews 25:41-45",
">\n\nThe pillars of democracy are: robust public education, independent journalism, human rights, equality and justice. Promote the pillars of democracy in your house and amongst your friends. Talk about them, talk about how to re-establish them, how to amplify them. Get involved in every democratic process in your community too. Defend democracy good people - it is under direct attack. Rise up and defend democracy and the United States itself from this fascist Republican attack.",
">\n\nHow is the law not fair here? It is equally illegal for both the rich and poor to sleep under a bridge!\n/s",
">\n\nSomething tells me rich people still would never be prosecuted or fined for this lol",
">\n\nFor a party that prides itself on “Christian values” Republicans get off on some really evil shit.",
">\n\nDems involuntarily committing people isnt much better. It's not just a Blue v Red thing. It's a Rich v Poor thing.",
">\n\nOk but that's Eric Adams, he's a cop and a conservative, he's abnormal for Democrats.",
">\n\nGavin Newsome isnt (supposedly) conservative. Neither is Portland, where forced hospitalization of the homeless is also happening.\nAnd really, if he was abnormal, wed see the really blue places creating homes for the homeless. Please god tell me you have proof that I’m wrong though. I would happily be wrong about this.",
">\n\nOk I'll grant you that, but I would hope that these jurisdictions and leaders would not follow that particularly reprehensible lead.",
">\n\nWhy does “We need to get the homeless off the streets.” always sound so progressive in Europe and sinister in the US?",
">\n\nIn the US it often means just put them in prison instead of shoving them in cramped shelters",
">\n\nCapitalism can never solve homelessness, bc they dont make enough money from it. Hence why CA, NY, and WA continue to struggle with it, while places like Missouri make it even worse. There are no pro-homeless states in the US.",
">\n\nThey make a shitload of money off of it lol. Homeless shelters get paid for every bed they have filled. I used to work at a shelter and they’d let dudes stay who were clearly breaking rules or a danger to others because if they have unfilled beds they don’t receive as much money from the government. The entire game is keeping the shelter full, taking the money they give per person (let’s say the budget calls for 200 bucks of resources per resident) they do anything and everything to supply the lowest acceptable level of resources allowed, at as far under that 200 dollar limit as they can. Then they keep the excess money.",
">\n\nShelters aren’t solving homelessness. But good point on how most of our systems designed to help people are still just money making systems at the end of the day.",
">\n\nSpoiler alert, you can’t solve homelessness unless you can somehow force people to not be mentally ill or drug addicted. At the end of the day it has to start with the homeless person. No amount of forcing someone to do x y or z will solve this",
">\n\nCrimes committed against the homeless are already largely ignored. It’s only a matter of time before being homeless becomes grounds for sanctioned murder, like it’s fucking pest control.",
">\n\nLMAO I was homeless for a while and it already is.\nLots of unhoused folks particularly women go missing and never show back up.",
">\n\nThey'll put them in warehouses run by Geo Corp, then bill you, the taxpayer $750 per day for that \"service\". All of this nonsense, so that America can avoid looking at the reasons why there are so many homeless, and how to get someone back on their feet once homeless. It's dystopian.",
">\n\nHave to keep taxpayer dollars going to for-profit prisons somehow",
">\n\nThe choice is to either stay in a homeless shelter full of addicts and mentally ill people, or...? \nIt's so odd to me that we live in a \"free country\" but you can't even live in the woods because the woods is owned by somebody else.",
">\n\nImagine if we tried actually helping people for once instead of just punishing them.",
">\n\nOh you’re broke! Let’s just help you out with a little prison time too. It’s what Jesus would do.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nCities across the country have seen a backlash to attempts by officials to remove homeless encampments or limit where unhoused people can camp.\nProtesters marched through the downtown Chicago area in November to protest against the city's announcement that donated winterized tents for homeless people had to be removed for street cleaning, reported the Chicago Tribune.\nY Robelo, founder of the non-profit Feeding People Through Plants, provided the tents and criticized the city's treatment of homeless people.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: people^#1 city^#2 law^#3 homeless^#4 new^#5",
">\n\n‘Anti-homeless’ laws sound as stupid as ‘anti-sneezing’ laws. \nJust because you rule out something it doesn’t mean it ceases to exist, when the ‘offenders’ have little power over it.",
">\n\nIt’s almost like there’s money to be made in the privatisation of prisons or something.",
">\n\nJust making it illegal to be poor now so they can fill prisons and get slave labor from the inmates, on top of taking away their rights in general and making a profit from it.",
">\n\nWhen their prison budgets blow up at least they will have solved the homeless problem, by actually housing in a WAY more expensive way.\nLocking people is not a solution, it is cruel but that’s republicans.",
">\n\nIf there wasn't so much financial inequality, affordable housing, decent wages and healthcare for all, there wouldn't be anti-homeless laws. Jfc this is not hard but due to corruption and a broken system, here we are.",
">\n\nSo damned wrong!!!!",
">\n\nThis is a cash grab to fill private prisons.",
">\n\nIm not sure about other areas laws but up here in the PNW the new laws are going after large camp sites, and areas of increased crime/violence. \nMore notably the only ones in effect that make it illegal to sleep out in public is if there is a support center within walking distance and it has enough capacity to house the person. \nWe get a lot of people echoing the sentiment that its an attack on the homeless and what not but when you have someone setup a tent behind your backyard or see your family threatened youll change your tune too.",
">\n\nIf you set up actual housing for them then itd stop being seen as an attack."
] |
>
I mean, some people in Eugene do exactly that. But like, if you put a mentally unstable tweaker in a house, they'll just magically become a valuable part of society? Mentally ill cannot care for themselves. Putting homeless in houses isn't going to solve shit, they'll still be out there doing their thing. Being in a house isn't going to stop people from shitting on the sidewalk in front of your store if you piss them off. | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised.",
">\n\nWhy didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty!",
">\n\nJust like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s",
">\n\nWhen you talk to random people on reddit about homelessness you realize that unfortunately when many people say the \"homelessness problem\", they don't mean that there are homeless people, they mean that they have to see homeless people.\nMany people seem perfectly happy with out of sight out of mind when it comes to the homeless.",
">\n\nTypical conversation with a liberal (I'm a socdem) about homelessness:\nLiberal: \"the homelessness epidemic is inhumane. We must help these people.\"\nMe: \"yes, I agree with you 100%. Let's start a fundraiser to convert that old building into a homeless shelter or low income housing, so that-\"\nLiberal: \"ewwwww no, I don't want homeless people here. The property value of my family's house will go down and I don't wanna see a bunch of tweakers at night.\"\nMe: \".......... alright, I'll just do it myself. Sorry for bothering you.\"",
">\n\nHonest question, do you own a home yourself?",
">\n\nI'll answer your question if you tell me why you're asking. Seems like bait/a trap to me.",
">\n\nDude’s gonna pull the “WhY aReN’t YoU hOuSiNg ThEm??!!111",
">\n\nI own a home (well the bank does, but y'know), and I'd fully endorse using a nearby house as a shelter for people experiencing homelessness. Would it potentially lower property values? Maybe, but I don't really care. Would it potentially mean more petty crime in the area? Also maybe yes, but there are things that could be done to counter that, and the whole point is lifting people out of poverty so that crime isn't something they feel they need to resort to. So yeah, bring on the residential shelters!",
">\n\n\"We must solve homelessness by criminalizing it.\"\n\"We must stop abortion by outlawing it.\"\n\"You can't stop gun violence by outlawing guns!\"",
">\n\nDisgusting, inhumane and incredibly immoral. How is walking the earth and poverty a crime?",
">\n\n\nHow is walking the earth and poverty a crime?\n\nWhat's even funnier is that these people claim to be Christians, followers of a man who famously had \"no place to lay his head\" and traveled around mooching off of his followers.",
">\n\nMatthews 25:41-45",
">\n\nThe pillars of democracy are: robust public education, independent journalism, human rights, equality and justice. Promote the pillars of democracy in your house and amongst your friends. Talk about them, talk about how to re-establish them, how to amplify them. Get involved in every democratic process in your community too. Defend democracy good people - it is under direct attack. Rise up and defend democracy and the United States itself from this fascist Republican attack.",
">\n\nHow is the law not fair here? It is equally illegal for both the rich and poor to sleep under a bridge!\n/s",
">\n\nSomething tells me rich people still would never be prosecuted or fined for this lol",
">\n\nFor a party that prides itself on “Christian values” Republicans get off on some really evil shit.",
">\n\nDems involuntarily committing people isnt much better. It's not just a Blue v Red thing. It's a Rich v Poor thing.",
">\n\nOk but that's Eric Adams, he's a cop and a conservative, he's abnormal for Democrats.",
">\n\nGavin Newsome isnt (supposedly) conservative. Neither is Portland, where forced hospitalization of the homeless is also happening.\nAnd really, if he was abnormal, wed see the really blue places creating homes for the homeless. Please god tell me you have proof that I’m wrong though. I would happily be wrong about this.",
">\n\nOk I'll grant you that, but I would hope that these jurisdictions and leaders would not follow that particularly reprehensible lead.",
">\n\nWhy does “We need to get the homeless off the streets.” always sound so progressive in Europe and sinister in the US?",
">\n\nIn the US it often means just put them in prison instead of shoving them in cramped shelters",
">\n\nCapitalism can never solve homelessness, bc they dont make enough money from it. Hence why CA, NY, and WA continue to struggle with it, while places like Missouri make it even worse. There are no pro-homeless states in the US.",
">\n\nThey make a shitload of money off of it lol. Homeless shelters get paid for every bed they have filled. I used to work at a shelter and they’d let dudes stay who were clearly breaking rules or a danger to others because if they have unfilled beds they don’t receive as much money from the government. The entire game is keeping the shelter full, taking the money they give per person (let’s say the budget calls for 200 bucks of resources per resident) they do anything and everything to supply the lowest acceptable level of resources allowed, at as far under that 200 dollar limit as they can. Then they keep the excess money.",
">\n\nShelters aren’t solving homelessness. But good point on how most of our systems designed to help people are still just money making systems at the end of the day.",
">\n\nSpoiler alert, you can’t solve homelessness unless you can somehow force people to not be mentally ill or drug addicted. At the end of the day it has to start with the homeless person. No amount of forcing someone to do x y or z will solve this",
">\n\nCrimes committed against the homeless are already largely ignored. It’s only a matter of time before being homeless becomes grounds for sanctioned murder, like it’s fucking pest control.",
">\n\nLMAO I was homeless for a while and it already is.\nLots of unhoused folks particularly women go missing and never show back up.",
">\n\nThey'll put them in warehouses run by Geo Corp, then bill you, the taxpayer $750 per day for that \"service\". All of this nonsense, so that America can avoid looking at the reasons why there are so many homeless, and how to get someone back on their feet once homeless. It's dystopian.",
">\n\nHave to keep taxpayer dollars going to for-profit prisons somehow",
">\n\nThe choice is to either stay in a homeless shelter full of addicts and mentally ill people, or...? \nIt's so odd to me that we live in a \"free country\" but you can't even live in the woods because the woods is owned by somebody else.",
">\n\nImagine if we tried actually helping people for once instead of just punishing them.",
">\n\nOh you’re broke! Let’s just help you out with a little prison time too. It’s what Jesus would do.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nCities across the country have seen a backlash to attempts by officials to remove homeless encampments or limit where unhoused people can camp.\nProtesters marched through the downtown Chicago area in November to protest against the city's announcement that donated winterized tents for homeless people had to be removed for street cleaning, reported the Chicago Tribune.\nY Robelo, founder of the non-profit Feeding People Through Plants, provided the tents and criticized the city's treatment of homeless people.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: people^#1 city^#2 law^#3 homeless^#4 new^#5",
">\n\n‘Anti-homeless’ laws sound as stupid as ‘anti-sneezing’ laws. \nJust because you rule out something it doesn’t mean it ceases to exist, when the ‘offenders’ have little power over it.",
">\n\nIt’s almost like there’s money to be made in the privatisation of prisons or something.",
">\n\nJust making it illegal to be poor now so they can fill prisons and get slave labor from the inmates, on top of taking away their rights in general and making a profit from it.",
">\n\nWhen their prison budgets blow up at least they will have solved the homeless problem, by actually housing in a WAY more expensive way.\nLocking people is not a solution, it is cruel but that’s republicans.",
">\n\nIf there wasn't so much financial inequality, affordable housing, decent wages and healthcare for all, there wouldn't be anti-homeless laws. Jfc this is not hard but due to corruption and a broken system, here we are.",
">\n\nSo damned wrong!!!!",
">\n\nThis is a cash grab to fill private prisons.",
">\n\nIm not sure about other areas laws but up here in the PNW the new laws are going after large camp sites, and areas of increased crime/violence. \nMore notably the only ones in effect that make it illegal to sleep out in public is if there is a support center within walking distance and it has enough capacity to house the person. \nWe get a lot of people echoing the sentiment that its an attack on the homeless and what not but when you have someone setup a tent behind your backyard or see your family threatened youll change your tune too.",
">\n\nIf you set up actual housing for them then itd stop being seen as an attack.",
">\n\nAre you volunteering your backyard for their housing? \nBecause no one else is."
] |
>
Yes thank you!
That is exactly why our area is focusing more on supporting services AND affordable housing.
Im so tired of people claiming that the only solution to just build tiny villages or just let them camp out then everything will work itself out. | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised.",
">\n\nWhy didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty!",
">\n\nJust like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s",
">\n\nWhen you talk to random people on reddit about homelessness you realize that unfortunately when many people say the \"homelessness problem\", they don't mean that there are homeless people, they mean that they have to see homeless people.\nMany people seem perfectly happy with out of sight out of mind when it comes to the homeless.",
">\n\nTypical conversation with a liberal (I'm a socdem) about homelessness:\nLiberal: \"the homelessness epidemic is inhumane. We must help these people.\"\nMe: \"yes, I agree with you 100%. Let's start a fundraiser to convert that old building into a homeless shelter or low income housing, so that-\"\nLiberal: \"ewwwww no, I don't want homeless people here. The property value of my family's house will go down and I don't wanna see a bunch of tweakers at night.\"\nMe: \".......... alright, I'll just do it myself. Sorry for bothering you.\"",
">\n\nHonest question, do you own a home yourself?",
">\n\nI'll answer your question if you tell me why you're asking. Seems like bait/a trap to me.",
">\n\nDude’s gonna pull the “WhY aReN’t YoU hOuSiNg ThEm??!!111",
">\n\nI own a home (well the bank does, but y'know), and I'd fully endorse using a nearby house as a shelter for people experiencing homelessness. Would it potentially lower property values? Maybe, but I don't really care. Would it potentially mean more petty crime in the area? Also maybe yes, but there are things that could be done to counter that, and the whole point is lifting people out of poverty so that crime isn't something they feel they need to resort to. So yeah, bring on the residential shelters!",
">\n\n\"We must solve homelessness by criminalizing it.\"\n\"We must stop abortion by outlawing it.\"\n\"You can't stop gun violence by outlawing guns!\"",
">\n\nDisgusting, inhumane and incredibly immoral. How is walking the earth and poverty a crime?",
">\n\n\nHow is walking the earth and poverty a crime?\n\nWhat's even funnier is that these people claim to be Christians, followers of a man who famously had \"no place to lay his head\" and traveled around mooching off of his followers.",
">\n\nMatthews 25:41-45",
">\n\nThe pillars of democracy are: robust public education, independent journalism, human rights, equality and justice. Promote the pillars of democracy in your house and amongst your friends. Talk about them, talk about how to re-establish them, how to amplify them. Get involved in every democratic process in your community too. Defend democracy good people - it is under direct attack. Rise up and defend democracy and the United States itself from this fascist Republican attack.",
">\n\nHow is the law not fair here? It is equally illegal for both the rich and poor to sleep under a bridge!\n/s",
">\n\nSomething tells me rich people still would never be prosecuted or fined for this lol",
">\n\nFor a party that prides itself on “Christian values” Republicans get off on some really evil shit.",
">\n\nDems involuntarily committing people isnt much better. It's not just a Blue v Red thing. It's a Rich v Poor thing.",
">\n\nOk but that's Eric Adams, he's a cop and a conservative, he's abnormal for Democrats.",
">\n\nGavin Newsome isnt (supposedly) conservative. Neither is Portland, where forced hospitalization of the homeless is also happening.\nAnd really, if he was abnormal, wed see the really blue places creating homes for the homeless. Please god tell me you have proof that I’m wrong though. I would happily be wrong about this.",
">\n\nOk I'll grant you that, but I would hope that these jurisdictions and leaders would not follow that particularly reprehensible lead.",
">\n\nWhy does “We need to get the homeless off the streets.” always sound so progressive in Europe and sinister in the US?",
">\n\nIn the US it often means just put them in prison instead of shoving them in cramped shelters",
">\n\nCapitalism can never solve homelessness, bc they dont make enough money from it. Hence why CA, NY, and WA continue to struggle with it, while places like Missouri make it even worse. There are no pro-homeless states in the US.",
">\n\nThey make a shitload of money off of it lol. Homeless shelters get paid for every bed they have filled. I used to work at a shelter and they’d let dudes stay who were clearly breaking rules or a danger to others because if they have unfilled beds they don’t receive as much money from the government. The entire game is keeping the shelter full, taking the money they give per person (let’s say the budget calls for 200 bucks of resources per resident) they do anything and everything to supply the lowest acceptable level of resources allowed, at as far under that 200 dollar limit as they can. Then they keep the excess money.",
">\n\nShelters aren’t solving homelessness. But good point on how most of our systems designed to help people are still just money making systems at the end of the day.",
">\n\nSpoiler alert, you can’t solve homelessness unless you can somehow force people to not be mentally ill or drug addicted. At the end of the day it has to start with the homeless person. No amount of forcing someone to do x y or z will solve this",
">\n\nCrimes committed against the homeless are already largely ignored. It’s only a matter of time before being homeless becomes grounds for sanctioned murder, like it’s fucking pest control.",
">\n\nLMAO I was homeless for a while and it already is.\nLots of unhoused folks particularly women go missing and never show back up.",
">\n\nThey'll put them in warehouses run by Geo Corp, then bill you, the taxpayer $750 per day for that \"service\". All of this nonsense, so that America can avoid looking at the reasons why there are so many homeless, and how to get someone back on their feet once homeless. It's dystopian.",
">\n\nHave to keep taxpayer dollars going to for-profit prisons somehow",
">\n\nThe choice is to either stay in a homeless shelter full of addicts and mentally ill people, or...? \nIt's so odd to me that we live in a \"free country\" but you can't even live in the woods because the woods is owned by somebody else.",
">\n\nImagine if we tried actually helping people for once instead of just punishing them.",
">\n\nOh you’re broke! Let’s just help you out with a little prison time too. It’s what Jesus would do.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nCities across the country have seen a backlash to attempts by officials to remove homeless encampments or limit where unhoused people can camp.\nProtesters marched through the downtown Chicago area in November to protest against the city's announcement that donated winterized tents for homeless people had to be removed for street cleaning, reported the Chicago Tribune.\nY Robelo, founder of the non-profit Feeding People Through Plants, provided the tents and criticized the city's treatment of homeless people.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: people^#1 city^#2 law^#3 homeless^#4 new^#5",
">\n\n‘Anti-homeless’ laws sound as stupid as ‘anti-sneezing’ laws. \nJust because you rule out something it doesn’t mean it ceases to exist, when the ‘offenders’ have little power over it.",
">\n\nIt’s almost like there’s money to be made in the privatisation of prisons or something.",
">\n\nJust making it illegal to be poor now so they can fill prisons and get slave labor from the inmates, on top of taking away their rights in general and making a profit from it.",
">\n\nWhen their prison budgets blow up at least they will have solved the homeless problem, by actually housing in a WAY more expensive way.\nLocking people is not a solution, it is cruel but that’s republicans.",
">\n\nIf there wasn't so much financial inequality, affordable housing, decent wages and healthcare for all, there wouldn't be anti-homeless laws. Jfc this is not hard but due to corruption and a broken system, here we are.",
">\n\nSo damned wrong!!!!",
">\n\nThis is a cash grab to fill private prisons.",
">\n\nIm not sure about other areas laws but up here in the PNW the new laws are going after large camp sites, and areas of increased crime/violence. \nMore notably the only ones in effect that make it illegal to sleep out in public is if there is a support center within walking distance and it has enough capacity to house the person. \nWe get a lot of people echoing the sentiment that its an attack on the homeless and what not but when you have someone setup a tent behind your backyard or see your family threatened youll change your tune too.",
">\n\nIf you set up actual housing for them then itd stop being seen as an attack.",
">\n\nAre you volunteering your backyard for their housing? \nBecause no one else is.",
">\n\nI mean, some people in Eugene do exactly that. But like, if you put a mentally unstable tweaker in a house, they'll just magically become a valuable part of society? Mentally ill cannot care for themselves. Putting homeless in houses isn't going to solve shit, they'll still be out there doing their thing. Being in a house isn't going to stop people from shitting on the sidewalk in front of your store if you piss them off."
] |
>
People don’t act as if it’s the only solution, it’s the required first step. Having housing makes all the rest of the support services infinitely easier. | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised.",
">\n\nWhy didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty!",
">\n\nJust like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s",
">\n\nWhen you talk to random people on reddit about homelessness you realize that unfortunately when many people say the \"homelessness problem\", they don't mean that there are homeless people, they mean that they have to see homeless people.\nMany people seem perfectly happy with out of sight out of mind when it comes to the homeless.",
">\n\nTypical conversation with a liberal (I'm a socdem) about homelessness:\nLiberal: \"the homelessness epidemic is inhumane. We must help these people.\"\nMe: \"yes, I agree with you 100%. Let's start a fundraiser to convert that old building into a homeless shelter or low income housing, so that-\"\nLiberal: \"ewwwww no, I don't want homeless people here. The property value of my family's house will go down and I don't wanna see a bunch of tweakers at night.\"\nMe: \".......... alright, I'll just do it myself. Sorry for bothering you.\"",
">\n\nHonest question, do you own a home yourself?",
">\n\nI'll answer your question if you tell me why you're asking. Seems like bait/a trap to me.",
">\n\nDude’s gonna pull the “WhY aReN’t YoU hOuSiNg ThEm??!!111",
">\n\nI own a home (well the bank does, but y'know), and I'd fully endorse using a nearby house as a shelter for people experiencing homelessness. Would it potentially lower property values? Maybe, but I don't really care. Would it potentially mean more petty crime in the area? Also maybe yes, but there are things that could be done to counter that, and the whole point is lifting people out of poverty so that crime isn't something they feel they need to resort to. So yeah, bring on the residential shelters!",
">\n\n\"We must solve homelessness by criminalizing it.\"\n\"We must stop abortion by outlawing it.\"\n\"You can't stop gun violence by outlawing guns!\"",
">\n\nDisgusting, inhumane and incredibly immoral. How is walking the earth and poverty a crime?",
">\n\n\nHow is walking the earth and poverty a crime?\n\nWhat's even funnier is that these people claim to be Christians, followers of a man who famously had \"no place to lay his head\" and traveled around mooching off of his followers.",
">\n\nMatthews 25:41-45",
">\n\nThe pillars of democracy are: robust public education, independent journalism, human rights, equality and justice. Promote the pillars of democracy in your house and amongst your friends. Talk about them, talk about how to re-establish them, how to amplify them. Get involved in every democratic process in your community too. Defend democracy good people - it is under direct attack. Rise up and defend democracy and the United States itself from this fascist Republican attack.",
">\n\nHow is the law not fair here? It is equally illegal for both the rich and poor to sleep under a bridge!\n/s",
">\n\nSomething tells me rich people still would never be prosecuted or fined for this lol",
">\n\nFor a party that prides itself on “Christian values” Republicans get off on some really evil shit.",
">\n\nDems involuntarily committing people isnt much better. It's not just a Blue v Red thing. It's a Rich v Poor thing.",
">\n\nOk but that's Eric Adams, he's a cop and a conservative, he's abnormal for Democrats.",
">\n\nGavin Newsome isnt (supposedly) conservative. Neither is Portland, where forced hospitalization of the homeless is also happening.\nAnd really, if he was abnormal, wed see the really blue places creating homes for the homeless. Please god tell me you have proof that I’m wrong though. I would happily be wrong about this.",
">\n\nOk I'll grant you that, but I would hope that these jurisdictions and leaders would not follow that particularly reprehensible lead.",
">\n\nWhy does “We need to get the homeless off the streets.” always sound so progressive in Europe and sinister in the US?",
">\n\nIn the US it often means just put them in prison instead of shoving them in cramped shelters",
">\n\nCapitalism can never solve homelessness, bc they dont make enough money from it. Hence why CA, NY, and WA continue to struggle with it, while places like Missouri make it even worse. There are no pro-homeless states in the US.",
">\n\nThey make a shitload of money off of it lol. Homeless shelters get paid for every bed they have filled. I used to work at a shelter and they’d let dudes stay who were clearly breaking rules or a danger to others because if they have unfilled beds they don’t receive as much money from the government. The entire game is keeping the shelter full, taking the money they give per person (let’s say the budget calls for 200 bucks of resources per resident) they do anything and everything to supply the lowest acceptable level of resources allowed, at as far under that 200 dollar limit as they can. Then they keep the excess money.",
">\n\nShelters aren’t solving homelessness. But good point on how most of our systems designed to help people are still just money making systems at the end of the day.",
">\n\nSpoiler alert, you can’t solve homelessness unless you can somehow force people to not be mentally ill or drug addicted. At the end of the day it has to start with the homeless person. No amount of forcing someone to do x y or z will solve this",
">\n\nCrimes committed against the homeless are already largely ignored. It’s only a matter of time before being homeless becomes grounds for sanctioned murder, like it’s fucking pest control.",
">\n\nLMAO I was homeless for a while and it already is.\nLots of unhoused folks particularly women go missing and never show back up.",
">\n\nThey'll put them in warehouses run by Geo Corp, then bill you, the taxpayer $750 per day for that \"service\". All of this nonsense, so that America can avoid looking at the reasons why there are so many homeless, and how to get someone back on their feet once homeless. It's dystopian.",
">\n\nHave to keep taxpayer dollars going to for-profit prisons somehow",
">\n\nThe choice is to either stay in a homeless shelter full of addicts and mentally ill people, or...? \nIt's so odd to me that we live in a \"free country\" but you can't even live in the woods because the woods is owned by somebody else.",
">\n\nImagine if we tried actually helping people for once instead of just punishing them.",
">\n\nOh you’re broke! Let’s just help you out with a little prison time too. It’s what Jesus would do.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nCities across the country have seen a backlash to attempts by officials to remove homeless encampments or limit where unhoused people can camp.\nProtesters marched through the downtown Chicago area in November to protest against the city's announcement that donated winterized tents for homeless people had to be removed for street cleaning, reported the Chicago Tribune.\nY Robelo, founder of the non-profit Feeding People Through Plants, provided the tents and criticized the city's treatment of homeless people.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: people^#1 city^#2 law^#3 homeless^#4 new^#5",
">\n\n‘Anti-homeless’ laws sound as stupid as ‘anti-sneezing’ laws. \nJust because you rule out something it doesn’t mean it ceases to exist, when the ‘offenders’ have little power over it.",
">\n\nIt’s almost like there’s money to be made in the privatisation of prisons or something.",
">\n\nJust making it illegal to be poor now so they can fill prisons and get slave labor from the inmates, on top of taking away their rights in general and making a profit from it.",
">\n\nWhen their prison budgets blow up at least they will have solved the homeless problem, by actually housing in a WAY more expensive way.\nLocking people is not a solution, it is cruel but that’s republicans.",
">\n\nIf there wasn't so much financial inequality, affordable housing, decent wages and healthcare for all, there wouldn't be anti-homeless laws. Jfc this is not hard but due to corruption and a broken system, here we are.",
">\n\nSo damned wrong!!!!",
">\n\nThis is a cash grab to fill private prisons.",
">\n\nIm not sure about other areas laws but up here in the PNW the new laws are going after large camp sites, and areas of increased crime/violence. \nMore notably the only ones in effect that make it illegal to sleep out in public is if there is a support center within walking distance and it has enough capacity to house the person. \nWe get a lot of people echoing the sentiment that its an attack on the homeless and what not but when you have someone setup a tent behind your backyard or see your family threatened youll change your tune too.",
">\n\nIf you set up actual housing for them then itd stop being seen as an attack.",
">\n\nAre you volunteering your backyard for their housing? \nBecause no one else is.",
">\n\nI mean, some people in Eugene do exactly that. But like, if you put a mentally unstable tweaker in a house, they'll just magically become a valuable part of society? Mentally ill cannot care for themselves. Putting homeless in houses isn't going to solve shit, they'll still be out there doing their thing. Being in a house isn't going to stop people from shitting on the sidewalk in front of your store if you piss them off.",
">\n\nYes thank you!\nThat is exactly why our area is focusing more on supporting services AND affordable housing. \nIm so tired of people claiming that the only solution to just build tiny villages or just let them camp out then everything will work itself out."
] |
>
We should pass laws saying it’s illegal to have less than a million dollars.
That way, I would magically have a million dollars. | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised.",
">\n\nWhy didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty!",
">\n\nJust like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s",
">\n\nWhen you talk to random people on reddit about homelessness you realize that unfortunately when many people say the \"homelessness problem\", they don't mean that there are homeless people, they mean that they have to see homeless people.\nMany people seem perfectly happy with out of sight out of mind when it comes to the homeless.",
">\n\nTypical conversation with a liberal (I'm a socdem) about homelessness:\nLiberal: \"the homelessness epidemic is inhumane. We must help these people.\"\nMe: \"yes, I agree with you 100%. Let's start a fundraiser to convert that old building into a homeless shelter or low income housing, so that-\"\nLiberal: \"ewwwww no, I don't want homeless people here. The property value of my family's house will go down and I don't wanna see a bunch of tweakers at night.\"\nMe: \".......... alright, I'll just do it myself. Sorry for bothering you.\"",
">\n\nHonest question, do you own a home yourself?",
">\n\nI'll answer your question if you tell me why you're asking. Seems like bait/a trap to me.",
">\n\nDude’s gonna pull the “WhY aReN’t YoU hOuSiNg ThEm??!!111",
">\n\nI own a home (well the bank does, but y'know), and I'd fully endorse using a nearby house as a shelter for people experiencing homelessness. Would it potentially lower property values? Maybe, but I don't really care. Would it potentially mean more petty crime in the area? Also maybe yes, but there are things that could be done to counter that, and the whole point is lifting people out of poverty so that crime isn't something they feel they need to resort to. So yeah, bring on the residential shelters!",
">\n\n\"We must solve homelessness by criminalizing it.\"\n\"We must stop abortion by outlawing it.\"\n\"You can't stop gun violence by outlawing guns!\"",
">\n\nDisgusting, inhumane and incredibly immoral. How is walking the earth and poverty a crime?",
">\n\n\nHow is walking the earth and poverty a crime?\n\nWhat's even funnier is that these people claim to be Christians, followers of a man who famously had \"no place to lay his head\" and traveled around mooching off of his followers.",
">\n\nMatthews 25:41-45",
">\n\nThe pillars of democracy are: robust public education, independent journalism, human rights, equality and justice. Promote the pillars of democracy in your house and amongst your friends. Talk about them, talk about how to re-establish them, how to amplify them. Get involved in every democratic process in your community too. Defend democracy good people - it is under direct attack. Rise up and defend democracy and the United States itself from this fascist Republican attack.",
">\n\nHow is the law not fair here? It is equally illegal for both the rich and poor to sleep under a bridge!\n/s",
">\n\nSomething tells me rich people still would never be prosecuted or fined for this lol",
">\n\nFor a party that prides itself on “Christian values” Republicans get off on some really evil shit.",
">\n\nDems involuntarily committing people isnt much better. It's not just a Blue v Red thing. It's a Rich v Poor thing.",
">\n\nOk but that's Eric Adams, he's a cop and a conservative, he's abnormal for Democrats.",
">\n\nGavin Newsome isnt (supposedly) conservative. Neither is Portland, where forced hospitalization of the homeless is also happening.\nAnd really, if he was abnormal, wed see the really blue places creating homes for the homeless. Please god tell me you have proof that I’m wrong though. I would happily be wrong about this.",
">\n\nOk I'll grant you that, but I would hope that these jurisdictions and leaders would not follow that particularly reprehensible lead.",
">\n\nWhy does “We need to get the homeless off the streets.” always sound so progressive in Europe and sinister in the US?",
">\n\nIn the US it often means just put them in prison instead of shoving them in cramped shelters",
">\n\nCapitalism can never solve homelessness, bc they dont make enough money from it. Hence why CA, NY, and WA continue to struggle with it, while places like Missouri make it even worse. There are no pro-homeless states in the US.",
">\n\nThey make a shitload of money off of it lol. Homeless shelters get paid for every bed they have filled. I used to work at a shelter and they’d let dudes stay who were clearly breaking rules or a danger to others because if they have unfilled beds they don’t receive as much money from the government. The entire game is keeping the shelter full, taking the money they give per person (let’s say the budget calls for 200 bucks of resources per resident) they do anything and everything to supply the lowest acceptable level of resources allowed, at as far under that 200 dollar limit as they can. Then they keep the excess money.",
">\n\nShelters aren’t solving homelessness. But good point on how most of our systems designed to help people are still just money making systems at the end of the day.",
">\n\nSpoiler alert, you can’t solve homelessness unless you can somehow force people to not be mentally ill or drug addicted. At the end of the day it has to start with the homeless person. No amount of forcing someone to do x y or z will solve this",
">\n\nCrimes committed against the homeless are already largely ignored. It’s only a matter of time before being homeless becomes grounds for sanctioned murder, like it’s fucking pest control.",
">\n\nLMAO I was homeless for a while and it already is.\nLots of unhoused folks particularly women go missing and never show back up.",
">\n\nThey'll put them in warehouses run by Geo Corp, then bill you, the taxpayer $750 per day for that \"service\". All of this nonsense, so that America can avoid looking at the reasons why there are so many homeless, and how to get someone back on their feet once homeless. It's dystopian.",
">\n\nHave to keep taxpayer dollars going to for-profit prisons somehow",
">\n\nThe choice is to either stay in a homeless shelter full of addicts and mentally ill people, or...? \nIt's so odd to me that we live in a \"free country\" but you can't even live in the woods because the woods is owned by somebody else.",
">\n\nImagine if we tried actually helping people for once instead of just punishing them.",
">\n\nOh you’re broke! Let’s just help you out with a little prison time too. It’s what Jesus would do.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nCities across the country have seen a backlash to attempts by officials to remove homeless encampments or limit where unhoused people can camp.\nProtesters marched through the downtown Chicago area in November to protest against the city's announcement that donated winterized tents for homeless people had to be removed for street cleaning, reported the Chicago Tribune.\nY Robelo, founder of the non-profit Feeding People Through Plants, provided the tents and criticized the city's treatment of homeless people.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: people^#1 city^#2 law^#3 homeless^#4 new^#5",
">\n\n‘Anti-homeless’ laws sound as stupid as ‘anti-sneezing’ laws. \nJust because you rule out something it doesn’t mean it ceases to exist, when the ‘offenders’ have little power over it.",
">\n\nIt’s almost like there’s money to be made in the privatisation of prisons or something.",
">\n\nJust making it illegal to be poor now so they can fill prisons and get slave labor from the inmates, on top of taking away their rights in general and making a profit from it.",
">\n\nWhen their prison budgets blow up at least they will have solved the homeless problem, by actually housing in a WAY more expensive way.\nLocking people is not a solution, it is cruel but that’s republicans.",
">\n\nIf there wasn't so much financial inequality, affordable housing, decent wages and healthcare for all, there wouldn't be anti-homeless laws. Jfc this is not hard but due to corruption and a broken system, here we are.",
">\n\nSo damned wrong!!!!",
">\n\nThis is a cash grab to fill private prisons.",
">\n\nIm not sure about other areas laws but up here in the PNW the new laws are going after large camp sites, and areas of increased crime/violence. \nMore notably the only ones in effect that make it illegal to sleep out in public is if there is a support center within walking distance and it has enough capacity to house the person. \nWe get a lot of people echoing the sentiment that its an attack on the homeless and what not but when you have someone setup a tent behind your backyard or see your family threatened youll change your tune too.",
">\n\nIf you set up actual housing for them then itd stop being seen as an attack.",
">\n\nAre you volunteering your backyard for their housing? \nBecause no one else is.",
">\n\nI mean, some people in Eugene do exactly that. But like, if you put a mentally unstable tweaker in a house, they'll just magically become a valuable part of society? Mentally ill cannot care for themselves. Putting homeless in houses isn't going to solve shit, they'll still be out there doing their thing. Being in a house isn't going to stop people from shitting on the sidewalk in front of your store if you piss them off.",
">\n\nYes thank you!\nThat is exactly why our area is focusing more on supporting services AND affordable housing. \nIm so tired of people claiming that the only solution to just build tiny villages or just let them camp out then everything will work itself out.",
">\n\nPeople don’t act as if it’s the only solution, it’s the required first step. Having housing makes all the rest of the support services infinitely easier."
] |
>
Isn't Missouri where Brett Favre and the governor stole millions of dollars of welfare funds to build a volleyball stadium for Favre's daughter's college in his name? Wonder why they're perpetually last in most important metrics... lol | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised.",
">\n\nWhy didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty!",
">\n\nJust like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s",
">\n\nWhen you talk to random people on reddit about homelessness you realize that unfortunately when many people say the \"homelessness problem\", they don't mean that there are homeless people, they mean that they have to see homeless people.\nMany people seem perfectly happy with out of sight out of mind when it comes to the homeless.",
">\n\nTypical conversation with a liberal (I'm a socdem) about homelessness:\nLiberal: \"the homelessness epidemic is inhumane. We must help these people.\"\nMe: \"yes, I agree with you 100%. Let's start a fundraiser to convert that old building into a homeless shelter or low income housing, so that-\"\nLiberal: \"ewwwww no, I don't want homeless people here. The property value of my family's house will go down and I don't wanna see a bunch of tweakers at night.\"\nMe: \".......... alright, I'll just do it myself. Sorry for bothering you.\"",
">\n\nHonest question, do you own a home yourself?",
">\n\nI'll answer your question if you tell me why you're asking. Seems like bait/a trap to me.",
">\n\nDude’s gonna pull the “WhY aReN’t YoU hOuSiNg ThEm??!!111",
">\n\nI own a home (well the bank does, but y'know), and I'd fully endorse using a nearby house as a shelter for people experiencing homelessness. Would it potentially lower property values? Maybe, but I don't really care. Would it potentially mean more petty crime in the area? Also maybe yes, but there are things that could be done to counter that, and the whole point is lifting people out of poverty so that crime isn't something they feel they need to resort to. So yeah, bring on the residential shelters!",
">\n\n\"We must solve homelessness by criminalizing it.\"\n\"We must stop abortion by outlawing it.\"\n\"You can't stop gun violence by outlawing guns!\"",
">\n\nDisgusting, inhumane and incredibly immoral. How is walking the earth and poverty a crime?",
">\n\n\nHow is walking the earth and poverty a crime?\n\nWhat's even funnier is that these people claim to be Christians, followers of a man who famously had \"no place to lay his head\" and traveled around mooching off of his followers.",
">\n\nMatthews 25:41-45",
">\n\nThe pillars of democracy are: robust public education, independent journalism, human rights, equality and justice. Promote the pillars of democracy in your house and amongst your friends. Talk about them, talk about how to re-establish them, how to amplify them. Get involved in every democratic process in your community too. Defend democracy good people - it is under direct attack. Rise up and defend democracy and the United States itself from this fascist Republican attack.",
">\n\nHow is the law not fair here? It is equally illegal for both the rich and poor to sleep under a bridge!\n/s",
">\n\nSomething tells me rich people still would never be prosecuted or fined for this lol",
">\n\nFor a party that prides itself on “Christian values” Republicans get off on some really evil shit.",
">\n\nDems involuntarily committing people isnt much better. It's not just a Blue v Red thing. It's a Rich v Poor thing.",
">\n\nOk but that's Eric Adams, he's a cop and a conservative, he's abnormal for Democrats.",
">\n\nGavin Newsome isnt (supposedly) conservative. Neither is Portland, where forced hospitalization of the homeless is also happening.\nAnd really, if he was abnormal, wed see the really blue places creating homes for the homeless. Please god tell me you have proof that I’m wrong though. I would happily be wrong about this.",
">\n\nOk I'll grant you that, but I would hope that these jurisdictions and leaders would not follow that particularly reprehensible lead.",
">\n\nWhy does “We need to get the homeless off the streets.” always sound so progressive in Europe and sinister in the US?",
">\n\nIn the US it often means just put them in prison instead of shoving them in cramped shelters",
">\n\nCapitalism can never solve homelessness, bc they dont make enough money from it. Hence why CA, NY, and WA continue to struggle with it, while places like Missouri make it even worse. There are no pro-homeless states in the US.",
">\n\nThey make a shitload of money off of it lol. Homeless shelters get paid for every bed they have filled. I used to work at a shelter and they’d let dudes stay who were clearly breaking rules or a danger to others because if they have unfilled beds they don’t receive as much money from the government. The entire game is keeping the shelter full, taking the money they give per person (let’s say the budget calls for 200 bucks of resources per resident) they do anything and everything to supply the lowest acceptable level of resources allowed, at as far under that 200 dollar limit as they can. Then they keep the excess money.",
">\n\nShelters aren’t solving homelessness. But good point on how most of our systems designed to help people are still just money making systems at the end of the day.",
">\n\nSpoiler alert, you can’t solve homelessness unless you can somehow force people to not be mentally ill or drug addicted. At the end of the day it has to start with the homeless person. No amount of forcing someone to do x y or z will solve this",
">\n\nCrimes committed against the homeless are already largely ignored. It’s only a matter of time before being homeless becomes grounds for sanctioned murder, like it’s fucking pest control.",
">\n\nLMAO I was homeless for a while and it already is.\nLots of unhoused folks particularly women go missing and never show back up.",
">\n\nThey'll put them in warehouses run by Geo Corp, then bill you, the taxpayer $750 per day for that \"service\". All of this nonsense, so that America can avoid looking at the reasons why there are so many homeless, and how to get someone back on their feet once homeless. It's dystopian.",
">\n\nHave to keep taxpayer dollars going to for-profit prisons somehow",
">\n\nThe choice is to either stay in a homeless shelter full of addicts and mentally ill people, or...? \nIt's so odd to me that we live in a \"free country\" but you can't even live in the woods because the woods is owned by somebody else.",
">\n\nImagine if we tried actually helping people for once instead of just punishing them.",
">\n\nOh you’re broke! Let’s just help you out with a little prison time too. It’s what Jesus would do.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nCities across the country have seen a backlash to attempts by officials to remove homeless encampments or limit where unhoused people can camp.\nProtesters marched through the downtown Chicago area in November to protest against the city's announcement that donated winterized tents for homeless people had to be removed for street cleaning, reported the Chicago Tribune.\nY Robelo, founder of the non-profit Feeding People Through Plants, provided the tents and criticized the city's treatment of homeless people.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: people^#1 city^#2 law^#3 homeless^#4 new^#5",
">\n\n‘Anti-homeless’ laws sound as stupid as ‘anti-sneezing’ laws. \nJust because you rule out something it doesn’t mean it ceases to exist, when the ‘offenders’ have little power over it.",
">\n\nIt’s almost like there’s money to be made in the privatisation of prisons or something.",
">\n\nJust making it illegal to be poor now so they can fill prisons and get slave labor from the inmates, on top of taking away their rights in general and making a profit from it.",
">\n\nWhen their prison budgets blow up at least they will have solved the homeless problem, by actually housing in a WAY more expensive way.\nLocking people is not a solution, it is cruel but that’s republicans.",
">\n\nIf there wasn't so much financial inequality, affordable housing, decent wages and healthcare for all, there wouldn't be anti-homeless laws. Jfc this is not hard but due to corruption and a broken system, here we are.",
">\n\nSo damned wrong!!!!",
">\n\nThis is a cash grab to fill private prisons.",
">\n\nIm not sure about other areas laws but up here in the PNW the new laws are going after large camp sites, and areas of increased crime/violence. \nMore notably the only ones in effect that make it illegal to sleep out in public is if there is a support center within walking distance and it has enough capacity to house the person. \nWe get a lot of people echoing the sentiment that its an attack on the homeless and what not but when you have someone setup a tent behind your backyard or see your family threatened youll change your tune too.",
">\n\nIf you set up actual housing for them then itd stop being seen as an attack.",
">\n\nAre you volunteering your backyard for their housing? \nBecause no one else is.",
">\n\nI mean, some people in Eugene do exactly that. But like, if you put a mentally unstable tweaker in a house, they'll just magically become a valuable part of society? Mentally ill cannot care for themselves. Putting homeless in houses isn't going to solve shit, they'll still be out there doing their thing. Being in a house isn't going to stop people from shitting on the sidewalk in front of your store if you piss them off.",
">\n\nYes thank you!\nThat is exactly why our area is focusing more on supporting services AND affordable housing. \nIm so tired of people claiming that the only solution to just build tiny villages or just let them camp out then everything will work itself out.",
">\n\nPeople don’t act as if it’s the only solution, it’s the required first step. Having housing makes all the rest of the support services infinitely easier.",
">\n\nWe should pass laws saying it’s illegal to have less than a million dollars.\nThat way, I would magically have a million dollars."
] |
>
Mississippi | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised.",
">\n\nWhy didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty!",
">\n\nJust like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s",
">\n\nWhen you talk to random people on reddit about homelessness you realize that unfortunately when many people say the \"homelessness problem\", they don't mean that there are homeless people, they mean that they have to see homeless people.\nMany people seem perfectly happy with out of sight out of mind when it comes to the homeless.",
">\n\nTypical conversation with a liberal (I'm a socdem) about homelessness:\nLiberal: \"the homelessness epidemic is inhumane. We must help these people.\"\nMe: \"yes, I agree with you 100%. Let's start a fundraiser to convert that old building into a homeless shelter or low income housing, so that-\"\nLiberal: \"ewwwww no, I don't want homeless people here. The property value of my family's house will go down and I don't wanna see a bunch of tweakers at night.\"\nMe: \".......... alright, I'll just do it myself. Sorry for bothering you.\"",
">\n\nHonest question, do you own a home yourself?",
">\n\nI'll answer your question if you tell me why you're asking. Seems like bait/a trap to me.",
">\n\nDude’s gonna pull the “WhY aReN’t YoU hOuSiNg ThEm??!!111",
">\n\nI own a home (well the bank does, but y'know), and I'd fully endorse using a nearby house as a shelter for people experiencing homelessness. Would it potentially lower property values? Maybe, but I don't really care. Would it potentially mean more petty crime in the area? Also maybe yes, but there are things that could be done to counter that, and the whole point is lifting people out of poverty so that crime isn't something they feel they need to resort to. So yeah, bring on the residential shelters!",
">\n\n\"We must solve homelessness by criminalizing it.\"\n\"We must stop abortion by outlawing it.\"\n\"You can't stop gun violence by outlawing guns!\"",
">\n\nDisgusting, inhumane and incredibly immoral. How is walking the earth and poverty a crime?",
">\n\n\nHow is walking the earth and poverty a crime?\n\nWhat's even funnier is that these people claim to be Christians, followers of a man who famously had \"no place to lay his head\" and traveled around mooching off of his followers.",
">\n\nMatthews 25:41-45",
">\n\nThe pillars of democracy are: robust public education, independent journalism, human rights, equality and justice. Promote the pillars of democracy in your house and amongst your friends. Talk about them, talk about how to re-establish them, how to amplify them. Get involved in every democratic process in your community too. Defend democracy good people - it is under direct attack. Rise up and defend democracy and the United States itself from this fascist Republican attack.",
">\n\nHow is the law not fair here? It is equally illegal for both the rich and poor to sleep under a bridge!\n/s",
">\n\nSomething tells me rich people still would never be prosecuted or fined for this lol",
">\n\nFor a party that prides itself on “Christian values” Republicans get off on some really evil shit.",
">\n\nDems involuntarily committing people isnt much better. It's not just a Blue v Red thing. It's a Rich v Poor thing.",
">\n\nOk but that's Eric Adams, he's a cop and a conservative, he's abnormal for Democrats.",
">\n\nGavin Newsome isnt (supposedly) conservative. Neither is Portland, where forced hospitalization of the homeless is also happening.\nAnd really, if he was abnormal, wed see the really blue places creating homes for the homeless. Please god tell me you have proof that I’m wrong though. I would happily be wrong about this.",
">\n\nOk I'll grant you that, but I would hope that these jurisdictions and leaders would not follow that particularly reprehensible lead.",
">\n\nWhy does “We need to get the homeless off the streets.” always sound so progressive in Europe and sinister in the US?",
">\n\nIn the US it often means just put them in prison instead of shoving them in cramped shelters",
">\n\nCapitalism can never solve homelessness, bc they dont make enough money from it. Hence why CA, NY, and WA continue to struggle with it, while places like Missouri make it even worse. There are no pro-homeless states in the US.",
">\n\nThey make a shitload of money off of it lol. Homeless shelters get paid for every bed they have filled. I used to work at a shelter and they’d let dudes stay who were clearly breaking rules or a danger to others because if they have unfilled beds they don’t receive as much money from the government. The entire game is keeping the shelter full, taking the money they give per person (let’s say the budget calls for 200 bucks of resources per resident) they do anything and everything to supply the lowest acceptable level of resources allowed, at as far under that 200 dollar limit as they can. Then they keep the excess money.",
">\n\nShelters aren’t solving homelessness. But good point on how most of our systems designed to help people are still just money making systems at the end of the day.",
">\n\nSpoiler alert, you can’t solve homelessness unless you can somehow force people to not be mentally ill or drug addicted. At the end of the day it has to start with the homeless person. No amount of forcing someone to do x y or z will solve this",
">\n\nCrimes committed against the homeless are already largely ignored. It’s only a matter of time before being homeless becomes grounds for sanctioned murder, like it’s fucking pest control.",
">\n\nLMAO I was homeless for a while and it already is.\nLots of unhoused folks particularly women go missing and never show back up.",
">\n\nThey'll put them in warehouses run by Geo Corp, then bill you, the taxpayer $750 per day for that \"service\". All of this nonsense, so that America can avoid looking at the reasons why there are so many homeless, and how to get someone back on their feet once homeless. It's dystopian.",
">\n\nHave to keep taxpayer dollars going to for-profit prisons somehow",
">\n\nThe choice is to either stay in a homeless shelter full of addicts and mentally ill people, or...? \nIt's so odd to me that we live in a \"free country\" but you can't even live in the woods because the woods is owned by somebody else.",
">\n\nImagine if we tried actually helping people for once instead of just punishing them.",
">\n\nOh you’re broke! Let’s just help you out with a little prison time too. It’s what Jesus would do.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nCities across the country have seen a backlash to attempts by officials to remove homeless encampments or limit where unhoused people can camp.\nProtesters marched through the downtown Chicago area in November to protest against the city's announcement that donated winterized tents for homeless people had to be removed for street cleaning, reported the Chicago Tribune.\nY Robelo, founder of the non-profit Feeding People Through Plants, provided the tents and criticized the city's treatment of homeless people.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: people^#1 city^#2 law^#3 homeless^#4 new^#5",
">\n\n‘Anti-homeless’ laws sound as stupid as ‘anti-sneezing’ laws. \nJust because you rule out something it doesn’t mean it ceases to exist, when the ‘offenders’ have little power over it.",
">\n\nIt’s almost like there’s money to be made in the privatisation of prisons or something.",
">\n\nJust making it illegal to be poor now so they can fill prisons and get slave labor from the inmates, on top of taking away their rights in general and making a profit from it.",
">\n\nWhen their prison budgets blow up at least they will have solved the homeless problem, by actually housing in a WAY more expensive way.\nLocking people is not a solution, it is cruel but that’s republicans.",
">\n\nIf there wasn't so much financial inequality, affordable housing, decent wages and healthcare for all, there wouldn't be anti-homeless laws. Jfc this is not hard but due to corruption and a broken system, here we are.",
">\n\nSo damned wrong!!!!",
">\n\nThis is a cash grab to fill private prisons.",
">\n\nIm not sure about other areas laws but up here in the PNW the new laws are going after large camp sites, and areas of increased crime/violence. \nMore notably the only ones in effect that make it illegal to sleep out in public is if there is a support center within walking distance and it has enough capacity to house the person. \nWe get a lot of people echoing the sentiment that its an attack on the homeless and what not but when you have someone setup a tent behind your backyard or see your family threatened youll change your tune too.",
">\n\nIf you set up actual housing for them then itd stop being seen as an attack.",
">\n\nAre you volunteering your backyard for their housing? \nBecause no one else is.",
">\n\nI mean, some people in Eugene do exactly that. But like, if you put a mentally unstable tweaker in a house, they'll just magically become a valuable part of society? Mentally ill cannot care for themselves. Putting homeless in houses isn't going to solve shit, they'll still be out there doing their thing. Being in a house isn't going to stop people from shitting on the sidewalk in front of your store if you piss them off.",
">\n\nYes thank you!\nThat is exactly why our area is focusing more on supporting services AND affordable housing. \nIm so tired of people claiming that the only solution to just build tiny villages or just let them camp out then everything will work itself out.",
">\n\nPeople don’t act as if it’s the only solution, it’s the required first step. Having housing makes all the rest of the support services infinitely easier.",
">\n\nWe should pass laws saying it’s illegal to have less than a million dollars.\nThat way, I would magically have a million dollars.",
">\n\nIsn't Missouri where Brett Favre and the governor stole millions of dollars of welfare funds to build a volleyball stadium for Favre's daughter's college in his name? Wonder why they're perpetually last in most important metrics... lol"
] |
>
It's really simple: anything that is required to maintain living should be guaranteed by society for all. Food, water, shelter, and healthcare--at a minimum. Beyond that, electricity, internet access, and transportation should also be included as guaranteed services. I would also include things like education and work and/or UBI.
Our government has trillions and yet we somehow cannot guarantee a basic standard of living for every human being who lives here. It's shameful. | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised.",
">\n\nWhy didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty!",
">\n\nJust like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s",
">\n\nWhen you talk to random people on reddit about homelessness you realize that unfortunately when many people say the \"homelessness problem\", they don't mean that there are homeless people, they mean that they have to see homeless people.\nMany people seem perfectly happy with out of sight out of mind when it comes to the homeless.",
">\n\nTypical conversation with a liberal (I'm a socdem) about homelessness:\nLiberal: \"the homelessness epidemic is inhumane. We must help these people.\"\nMe: \"yes, I agree with you 100%. Let's start a fundraiser to convert that old building into a homeless shelter or low income housing, so that-\"\nLiberal: \"ewwwww no, I don't want homeless people here. The property value of my family's house will go down and I don't wanna see a bunch of tweakers at night.\"\nMe: \".......... alright, I'll just do it myself. Sorry for bothering you.\"",
">\n\nHonest question, do you own a home yourself?",
">\n\nI'll answer your question if you tell me why you're asking. Seems like bait/a trap to me.",
">\n\nDude’s gonna pull the “WhY aReN’t YoU hOuSiNg ThEm??!!111",
">\n\nI own a home (well the bank does, but y'know), and I'd fully endorse using a nearby house as a shelter for people experiencing homelessness. Would it potentially lower property values? Maybe, but I don't really care. Would it potentially mean more petty crime in the area? Also maybe yes, but there are things that could be done to counter that, and the whole point is lifting people out of poverty so that crime isn't something they feel they need to resort to. So yeah, bring on the residential shelters!",
">\n\n\"We must solve homelessness by criminalizing it.\"\n\"We must stop abortion by outlawing it.\"\n\"You can't stop gun violence by outlawing guns!\"",
">\n\nDisgusting, inhumane and incredibly immoral. How is walking the earth and poverty a crime?",
">\n\n\nHow is walking the earth and poverty a crime?\n\nWhat's even funnier is that these people claim to be Christians, followers of a man who famously had \"no place to lay his head\" and traveled around mooching off of his followers.",
">\n\nMatthews 25:41-45",
">\n\nThe pillars of democracy are: robust public education, independent journalism, human rights, equality and justice. Promote the pillars of democracy in your house and amongst your friends. Talk about them, talk about how to re-establish them, how to amplify them. Get involved in every democratic process in your community too. Defend democracy good people - it is under direct attack. Rise up and defend democracy and the United States itself from this fascist Republican attack.",
">\n\nHow is the law not fair here? It is equally illegal for both the rich and poor to sleep under a bridge!\n/s",
">\n\nSomething tells me rich people still would never be prosecuted or fined for this lol",
">\n\nFor a party that prides itself on “Christian values” Republicans get off on some really evil shit.",
">\n\nDems involuntarily committing people isnt much better. It's not just a Blue v Red thing. It's a Rich v Poor thing.",
">\n\nOk but that's Eric Adams, he's a cop and a conservative, he's abnormal for Democrats.",
">\n\nGavin Newsome isnt (supposedly) conservative. Neither is Portland, where forced hospitalization of the homeless is also happening.\nAnd really, if he was abnormal, wed see the really blue places creating homes for the homeless. Please god tell me you have proof that I’m wrong though. I would happily be wrong about this.",
">\n\nOk I'll grant you that, but I would hope that these jurisdictions and leaders would not follow that particularly reprehensible lead.",
">\n\nWhy does “We need to get the homeless off the streets.” always sound so progressive in Europe and sinister in the US?",
">\n\nIn the US it often means just put them in prison instead of shoving them in cramped shelters",
">\n\nCapitalism can never solve homelessness, bc they dont make enough money from it. Hence why CA, NY, and WA continue to struggle with it, while places like Missouri make it even worse. There are no pro-homeless states in the US.",
">\n\nThey make a shitload of money off of it lol. Homeless shelters get paid for every bed they have filled. I used to work at a shelter and they’d let dudes stay who were clearly breaking rules or a danger to others because if they have unfilled beds they don’t receive as much money from the government. The entire game is keeping the shelter full, taking the money they give per person (let’s say the budget calls for 200 bucks of resources per resident) they do anything and everything to supply the lowest acceptable level of resources allowed, at as far under that 200 dollar limit as they can. Then they keep the excess money.",
">\n\nShelters aren’t solving homelessness. But good point on how most of our systems designed to help people are still just money making systems at the end of the day.",
">\n\nSpoiler alert, you can’t solve homelessness unless you can somehow force people to not be mentally ill or drug addicted. At the end of the day it has to start with the homeless person. No amount of forcing someone to do x y or z will solve this",
">\n\nCrimes committed against the homeless are already largely ignored. It’s only a matter of time before being homeless becomes grounds for sanctioned murder, like it’s fucking pest control.",
">\n\nLMAO I was homeless for a while and it already is.\nLots of unhoused folks particularly women go missing and never show back up.",
">\n\nThey'll put them in warehouses run by Geo Corp, then bill you, the taxpayer $750 per day for that \"service\". All of this nonsense, so that America can avoid looking at the reasons why there are so many homeless, and how to get someone back on their feet once homeless. It's dystopian.",
">\n\nHave to keep taxpayer dollars going to for-profit prisons somehow",
">\n\nThe choice is to either stay in a homeless shelter full of addicts and mentally ill people, or...? \nIt's so odd to me that we live in a \"free country\" but you can't even live in the woods because the woods is owned by somebody else.",
">\n\nImagine if we tried actually helping people for once instead of just punishing them.",
">\n\nOh you’re broke! Let’s just help you out with a little prison time too. It’s what Jesus would do.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nCities across the country have seen a backlash to attempts by officials to remove homeless encampments or limit where unhoused people can camp.\nProtesters marched through the downtown Chicago area in November to protest against the city's announcement that donated winterized tents for homeless people had to be removed for street cleaning, reported the Chicago Tribune.\nY Robelo, founder of the non-profit Feeding People Through Plants, provided the tents and criticized the city's treatment of homeless people.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: people^#1 city^#2 law^#3 homeless^#4 new^#5",
">\n\n‘Anti-homeless’ laws sound as stupid as ‘anti-sneezing’ laws. \nJust because you rule out something it doesn’t mean it ceases to exist, when the ‘offenders’ have little power over it.",
">\n\nIt’s almost like there’s money to be made in the privatisation of prisons or something.",
">\n\nJust making it illegal to be poor now so they can fill prisons and get slave labor from the inmates, on top of taking away their rights in general and making a profit from it.",
">\n\nWhen their prison budgets blow up at least they will have solved the homeless problem, by actually housing in a WAY more expensive way.\nLocking people is not a solution, it is cruel but that’s republicans.",
">\n\nIf there wasn't so much financial inequality, affordable housing, decent wages and healthcare for all, there wouldn't be anti-homeless laws. Jfc this is not hard but due to corruption and a broken system, here we are.",
">\n\nSo damned wrong!!!!",
">\n\nThis is a cash grab to fill private prisons.",
">\n\nIm not sure about other areas laws but up here in the PNW the new laws are going after large camp sites, and areas of increased crime/violence. \nMore notably the only ones in effect that make it illegal to sleep out in public is if there is a support center within walking distance and it has enough capacity to house the person. \nWe get a lot of people echoing the sentiment that its an attack on the homeless and what not but when you have someone setup a tent behind your backyard or see your family threatened youll change your tune too.",
">\n\nIf you set up actual housing for them then itd stop being seen as an attack.",
">\n\nAre you volunteering your backyard for their housing? \nBecause no one else is.",
">\n\nI mean, some people in Eugene do exactly that. But like, if you put a mentally unstable tweaker in a house, they'll just magically become a valuable part of society? Mentally ill cannot care for themselves. Putting homeless in houses isn't going to solve shit, they'll still be out there doing their thing. Being in a house isn't going to stop people from shitting on the sidewalk in front of your store if you piss them off.",
">\n\nYes thank you!\nThat is exactly why our area is focusing more on supporting services AND affordable housing. \nIm so tired of people claiming that the only solution to just build tiny villages or just let them camp out then everything will work itself out.",
">\n\nPeople don’t act as if it’s the only solution, it’s the required first step. Having housing makes all the rest of the support services infinitely easier.",
">\n\nWe should pass laws saying it’s illegal to have less than a million dollars.\nThat way, I would magically have a million dollars.",
">\n\nIsn't Missouri where Brett Favre and the governor stole millions of dollars of welfare funds to build a volleyball stadium for Favre's daughter's college in his name? Wonder why they're perpetually last in most important metrics... lol",
">\n\nMississippi"
] |
>
When you have homeless shitting and throwing used needles in your yard, you start to understand the anger behind these laws.
This isn't the right way to go about it, but people want something done. | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised.",
">\n\nWhy didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty!",
">\n\nJust like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s",
">\n\nWhen you talk to random people on reddit about homelessness you realize that unfortunately when many people say the \"homelessness problem\", they don't mean that there are homeless people, they mean that they have to see homeless people.\nMany people seem perfectly happy with out of sight out of mind when it comes to the homeless.",
">\n\nTypical conversation with a liberal (I'm a socdem) about homelessness:\nLiberal: \"the homelessness epidemic is inhumane. We must help these people.\"\nMe: \"yes, I agree with you 100%. Let's start a fundraiser to convert that old building into a homeless shelter or low income housing, so that-\"\nLiberal: \"ewwwww no, I don't want homeless people here. The property value of my family's house will go down and I don't wanna see a bunch of tweakers at night.\"\nMe: \".......... alright, I'll just do it myself. Sorry for bothering you.\"",
">\n\nHonest question, do you own a home yourself?",
">\n\nI'll answer your question if you tell me why you're asking. Seems like bait/a trap to me.",
">\n\nDude’s gonna pull the “WhY aReN’t YoU hOuSiNg ThEm??!!111",
">\n\nI own a home (well the bank does, but y'know), and I'd fully endorse using a nearby house as a shelter for people experiencing homelessness. Would it potentially lower property values? Maybe, but I don't really care. Would it potentially mean more petty crime in the area? Also maybe yes, but there are things that could be done to counter that, and the whole point is lifting people out of poverty so that crime isn't something they feel they need to resort to. So yeah, bring on the residential shelters!",
">\n\n\"We must solve homelessness by criminalizing it.\"\n\"We must stop abortion by outlawing it.\"\n\"You can't stop gun violence by outlawing guns!\"",
">\n\nDisgusting, inhumane and incredibly immoral. How is walking the earth and poverty a crime?",
">\n\n\nHow is walking the earth and poverty a crime?\n\nWhat's even funnier is that these people claim to be Christians, followers of a man who famously had \"no place to lay his head\" and traveled around mooching off of his followers.",
">\n\nMatthews 25:41-45",
">\n\nThe pillars of democracy are: robust public education, independent journalism, human rights, equality and justice. Promote the pillars of democracy in your house and amongst your friends. Talk about them, talk about how to re-establish them, how to amplify them. Get involved in every democratic process in your community too. Defend democracy good people - it is under direct attack. Rise up and defend democracy and the United States itself from this fascist Republican attack.",
">\n\nHow is the law not fair here? It is equally illegal for both the rich and poor to sleep under a bridge!\n/s",
">\n\nSomething tells me rich people still would never be prosecuted or fined for this lol",
">\n\nFor a party that prides itself on “Christian values” Republicans get off on some really evil shit.",
">\n\nDems involuntarily committing people isnt much better. It's not just a Blue v Red thing. It's a Rich v Poor thing.",
">\n\nOk but that's Eric Adams, he's a cop and a conservative, he's abnormal for Democrats.",
">\n\nGavin Newsome isnt (supposedly) conservative. Neither is Portland, where forced hospitalization of the homeless is also happening.\nAnd really, if he was abnormal, wed see the really blue places creating homes for the homeless. Please god tell me you have proof that I’m wrong though. I would happily be wrong about this.",
">\n\nOk I'll grant you that, but I would hope that these jurisdictions and leaders would not follow that particularly reprehensible lead.",
">\n\nWhy does “We need to get the homeless off the streets.” always sound so progressive in Europe and sinister in the US?",
">\n\nIn the US it often means just put them in prison instead of shoving them in cramped shelters",
">\n\nCapitalism can never solve homelessness, bc they dont make enough money from it. Hence why CA, NY, and WA continue to struggle with it, while places like Missouri make it even worse. There are no pro-homeless states in the US.",
">\n\nThey make a shitload of money off of it lol. Homeless shelters get paid for every bed they have filled. I used to work at a shelter and they’d let dudes stay who were clearly breaking rules or a danger to others because if they have unfilled beds they don’t receive as much money from the government. The entire game is keeping the shelter full, taking the money they give per person (let’s say the budget calls for 200 bucks of resources per resident) they do anything and everything to supply the lowest acceptable level of resources allowed, at as far under that 200 dollar limit as they can. Then they keep the excess money.",
">\n\nShelters aren’t solving homelessness. But good point on how most of our systems designed to help people are still just money making systems at the end of the day.",
">\n\nSpoiler alert, you can’t solve homelessness unless you can somehow force people to not be mentally ill or drug addicted. At the end of the day it has to start with the homeless person. No amount of forcing someone to do x y or z will solve this",
">\n\nCrimes committed against the homeless are already largely ignored. It’s only a matter of time before being homeless becomes grounds for sanctioned murder, like it’s fucking pest control.",
">\n\nLMAO I was homeless for a while and it already is.\nLots of unhoused folks particularly women go missing and never show back up.",
">\n\nThey'll put them in warehouses run by Geo Corp, then bill you, the taxpayer $750 per day for that \"service\". All of this nonsense, so that America can avoid looking at the reasons why there are so many homeless, and how to get someone back on their feet once homeless. It's dystopian.",
">\n\nHave to keep taxpayer dollars going to for-profit prisons somehow",
">\n\nThe choice is to either stay in a homeless shelter full of addicts and mentally ill people, or...? \nIt's so odd to me that we live in a \"free country\" but you can't even live in the woods because the woods is owned by somebody else.",
">\n\nImagine if we tried actually helping people for once instead of just punishing them.",
">\n\nOh you’re broke! Let’s just help you out with a little prison time too. It’s what Jesus would do.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nCities across the country have seen a backlash to attempts by officials to remove homeless encampments or limit where unhoused people can camp.\nProtesters marched through the downtown Chicago area in November to protest against the city's announcement that donated winterized tents for homeless people had to be removed for street cleaning, reported the Chicago Tribune.\nY Robelo, founder of the non-profit Feeding People Through Plants, provided the tents and criticized the city's treatment of homeless people.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: people^#1 city^#2 law^#3 homeless^#4 new^#5",
">\n\n‘Anti-homeless’ laws sound as stupid as ‘anti-sneezing’ laws. \nJust because you rule out something it doesn’t mean it ceases to exist, when the ‘offenders’ have little power over it.",
">\n\nIt’s almost like there’s money to be made in the privatisation of prisons or something.",
">\n\nJust making it illegal to be poor now so they can fill prisons and get slave labor from the inmates, on top of taking away their rights in general and making a profit from it.",
">\n\nWhen their prison budgets blow up at least they will have solved the homeless problem, by actually housing in a WAY more expensive way.\nLocking people is not a solution, it is cruel but that’s republicans.",
">\n\nIf there wasn't so much financial inequality, affordable housing, decent wages and healthcare for all, there wouldn't be anti-homeless laws. Jfc this is not hard but due to corruption and a broken system, here we are.",
">\n\nSo damned wrong!!!!",
">\n\nThis is a cash grab to fill private prisons.",
">\n\nIm not sure about other areas laws but up here in the PNW the new laws are going after large camp sites, and areas of increased crime/violence. \nMore notably the only ones in effect that make it illegal to sleep out in public is if there is a support center within walking distance and it has enough capacity to house the person. \nWe get a lot of people echoing the sentiment that its an attack on the homeless and what not but when you have someone setup a tent behind your backyard or see your family threatened youll change your tune too.",
">\n\nIf you set up actual housing for them then itd stop being seen as an attack.",
">\n\nAre you volunteering your backyard for their housing? \nBecause no one else is.",
">\n\nI mean, some people in Eugene do exactly that. But like, if you put a mentally unstable tweaker in a house, they'll just magically become a valuable part of society? Mentally ill cannot care for themselves. Putting homeless in houses isn't going to solve shit, they'll still be out there doing their thing. Being in a house isn't going to stop people from shitting on the sidewalk in front of your store if you piss them off.",
">\n\nYes thank you!\nThat is exactly why our area is focusing more on supporting services AND affordable housing. \nIm so tired of people claiming that the only solution to just build tiny villages or just let them camp out then everything will work itself out.",
">\n\nPeople don’t act as if it’s the only solution, it’s the required first step. Having housing makes all the rest of the support services infinitely easier.",
">\n\nWe should pass laws saying it’s illegal to have less than a million dollars.\nThat way, I would magically have a million dollars.",
">\n\nIsn't Missouri where Brett Favre and the governor stole millions of dollars of welfare funds to build a volleyball stadium for Favre's daughter's college in his name? Wonder why they're perpetually last in most important metrics... lol",
">\n\nMississippi",
">\n\nIt's really simple: anything that is required to maintain living should be guaranteed by society for all. Food, water, shelter, and healthcare--at a minimum. Beyond that, electricity, internet access, and transportation should also be included as guaranteed services. I would also include things like education and work and/or UBI.\nOur government has trillions and yet we somehow cannot guarantee a basic standard of living for every human being who lives here. It's shameful."
] |
>
It seems most people here who are criticizing these policies don't have to actually live near homeless people. Anyone who lives in a downtown area or nearby knows how bad it is. We all have to smell and see the shit, piss and trash left by homeless people every day on our streets and even our entrances. People are also getting stabbed and beaten by homeless people. Cities are unsafe and filthy partly because of them. It's really easy to criticize these policies from your comfortable suburban home far away from all the homeless people. If you had to live near them, you would be the first to scream at city hall to do something about it. | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised.",
">\n\nWhy didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty!",
">\n\nJust like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s",
">\n\nWhen you talk to random people on reddit about homelessness you realize that unfortunately when many people say the \"homelessness problem\", they don't mean that there are homeless people, they mean that they have to see homeless people.\nMany people seem perfectly happy with out of sight out of mind when it comes to the homeless.",
">\n\nTypical conversation with a liberal (I'm a socdem) about homelessness:\nLiberal: \"the homelessness epidemic is inhumane. We must help these people.\"\nMe: \"yes, I agree with you 100%. Let's start a fundraiser to convert that old building into a homeless shelter or low income housing, so that-\"\nLiberal: \"ewwwww no, I don't want homeless people here. The property value of my family's house will go down and I don't wanna see a bunch of tweakers at night.\"\nMe: \".......... alright, I'll just do it myself. Sorry for bothering you.\"",
">\n\nHonest question, do you own a home yourself?",
">\n\nI'll answer your question if you tell me why you're asking. Seems like bait/a trap to me.",
">\n\nDude’s gonna pull the “WhY aReN’t YoU hOuSiNg ThEm??!!111",
">\n\nI own a home (well the bank does, but y'know), and I'd fully endorse using a nearby house as a shelter for people experiencing homelessness. Would it potentially lower property values? Maybe, but I don't really care. Would it potentially mean more petty crime in the area? Also maybe yes, but there are things that could be done to counter that, and the whole point is lifting people out of poverty so that crime isn't something they feel they need to resort to. So yeah, bring on the residential shelters!",
">\n\n\"We must solve homelessness by criminalizing it.\"\n\"We must stop abortion by outlawing it.\"\n\"You can't stop gun violence by outlawing guns!\"",
">\n\nDisgusting, inhumane and incredibly immoral. How is walking the earth and poverty a crime?",
">\n\n\nHow is walking the earth and poverty a crime?\n\nWhat's even funnier is that these people claim to be Christians, followers of a man who famously had \"no place to lay his head\" and traveled around mooching off of his followers.",
">\n\nMatthews 25:41-45",
">\n\nThe pillars of democracy are: robust public education, independent journalism, human rights, equality and justice. Promote the pillars of democracy in your house and amongst your friends. Talk about them, talk about how to re-establish them, how to amplify them. Get involved in every democratic process in your community too. Defend democracy good people - it is under direct attack. Rise up and defend democracy and the United States itself from this fascist Republican attack.",
">\n\nHow is the law not fair here? It is equally illegal for both the rich and poor to sleep under a bridge!\n/s",
">\n\nSomething tells me rich people still would never be prosecuted or fined for this lol",
">\n\nFor a party that prides itself on “Christian values” Republicans get off on some really evil shit.",
">\n\nDems involuntarily committing people isnt much better. It's not just a Blue v Red thing. It's a Rich v Poor thing.",
">\n\nOk but that's Eric Adams, he's a cop and a conservative, he's abnormal for Democrats.",
">\n\nGavin Newsome isnt (supposedly) conservative. Neither is Portland, where forced hospitalization of the homeless is also happening.\nAnd really, if he was abnormal, wed see the really blue places creating homes for the homeless. Please god tell me you have proof that I’m wrong though. I would happily be wrong about this.",
">\n\nOk I'll grant you that, but I would hope that these jurisdictions and leaders would not follow that particularly reprehensible lead.",
">\n\nWhy does “We need to get the homeless off the streets.” always sound so progressive in Europe and sinister in the US?",
">\n\nIn the US it often means just put them in prison instead of shoving them in cramped shelters",
">\n\nCapitalism can never solve homelessness, bc they dont make enough money from it. Hence why CA, NY, and WA continue to struggle with it, while places like Missouri make it even worse. There are no pro-homeless states in the US.",
">\n\nThey make a shitload of money off of it lol. Homeless shelters get paid for every bed they have filled. I used to work at a shelter and they’d let dudes stay who were clearly breaking rules or a danger to others because if they have unfilled beds they don’t receive as much money from the government. The entire game is keeping the shelter full, taking the money they give per person (let’s say the budget calls for 200 bucks of resources per resident) they do anything and everything to supply the lowest acceptable level of resources allowed, at as far under that 200 dollar limit as they can. Then they keep the excess money.",
">\n\nShelters aren’t solving homelessness. But good point on how most of our systems designed to help people are still just money making systems at the end of the day.",
">\n\nSpoiler alert, you can’t solve homelessness unless you can somehow force people to not be mentally ill or drug addicted. At the end of the day it has to start with the homeless person. No amount of forcing someone to do x y or z will solve this",
">\n\nCrimes committed against the homeless are already largely ignored. It’s only a matter of time before being homeless becomes grounds for sanctioned murder, like it’s fucking pest control.",
">\n\nLMAO I was homeless for a while and it already is.\nLots of unhoused folks particularly women go missing and never show back up.",
">\n\nThey'll put them in warehouses run by Geo Corp, then bill you, the taxpayer $750 per day for that \"service\". All of this nonsense, so that America can avoid looking at the reasons why there are so many homeless, and how to get someone back on their feet once homeless. It's dystopian.",
">\n\nHave to keep taxpayer dollars going to for-profit prisons somehow",
">\n\nThe choice is to either stay in a homeless shelter full of addicts and mentally ill people, or...? \nIt's so odd to me that we live in a \"free country\" but you can't even live in the woods because the woods is owned by somebody else.",
">\n\nImagine if we tried actually helping people for once instead of just punishing them.",
">\n\nOh you’re broke! Let’s just help you out with a little prison time too. It’s what Jesus would do.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nCities across the country have seen a backlash to attempts by officials to remove homeless encampments or limit where unhoused people can camp.\nProtesters marched through the downtown Chicago area in November to protest against the city's announcement that donated winterized tents for homeless people had to be removed for street cleaning, reported the Chicago Tribune.\nY Robelo, founder of the non-profit Feeding People Through Plants, provided the tents and criticized the city's treatment of homeless people.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: people^#1 city^#2 law^#3 homeless^#4 new^#5",
">\n\n‘Anti-homeless’ laws sound as stupid as ‘anti-sneezing’ laws. \nJust because you rule out something it doesn’t mean it ceases to exist, when the ‘offenders’ have little power over it.",
">\n\nIt’s almost like there’s money to be made in the privatisation of prisons or something.",
">\n\nJust making it illegal to be poor now so they can fill prisons and get slave labor from the inmates, on top of taking away their rights in general and making a profit from it.",
">\n\nWhen their prison budgets blow up at least they will have solved the homeless problem, by actually housing in a WAY more expensive way.\nLocking people is not a solution, it is cruel but that’s republicans.",
">\n\nIf there wasn't so much financial inequality, affordable housing, decent wages and healthcare for all, there wouldn't be anti-homeless laws. Jfc this is not hard but due to corruption and a broken system, here we are.",
">\n\nSo damned wrong!!!!",
">\n\nThis is a cash grab to fill private prisons.",
">\n\nIm not sure about other areas laws but up here in the PNW the new laws are going after large camp sites, and areas of increased crime/violence. \nMore notably the only ones in effect that make it illegal to sleep out in public is if there is a support center within walking distance and it has enough capacity to house the person. \nWe get a lot of people echoing the sentiment that its an attack on the homeless and what not but when you have someone setup a tent behind your backyard or see your family threatened youll change your tune too.",
">\n\nIf you set up actual housing for them then itd stop being seen as an attack.",
">\n\nAre you volunteering your backyard for their housing? \nBecause no one else is.",
">\n\nI mean, some people in Eugene do exactly that. But like, if you put a mentally unstable tweaker in a house, they'll just magically become a valuable part of society? Mentally ill cannot care for themselves. Putting homeless in houses isn't going to solve shit, they'll still be out there doing their thing. Being in a house isn't going to stop people from shitting on the sidewalk in front of your store if you piss them off.",
">\n\nYes thank you!\nThat is exactly why our area is focusing more on supporting services AND affordable housing. \nIm so tired of people claiming that the only solution to just build tiny villages or just let them camp out then everything will work itself out.",
">\n\nPeople don’t act as if it’s the only solution, it’s the required first step. Having housing makes all the rest of the support services infinitely easier.",
">\n\nWe should pass laws saying it’s illegal to have less than a million dollars.\nThat way, I would magically have a million dollars.",
">\n\nIsn't Missouri where Brett Favre and the governor stole millions of dollars of welfare funds to build a volleyball stadium for Favre's daughter's college in his name? Wonder why they're perpetually last in most important metrics... lol",
">\n\nMississippi",
">\n\nIt's really simple: anything that is required to maintain living should be guaranteed by society for all. Food, water, shelter, and healthcare--at a minimum. Beyond that, electricity, internet access, and transportation should also be included as guaranteed services. I would also include things like education and work and/or UBI.\nOur government has trillions and yet we somehow cannot guarantee a basic standard of living for every human being who lives here. It's shameful.",
">\n\nWhen you have homeless shitting and throwing used needles in your yard, you start to understand the anger behind these laws.\nThis isn't the right way to go about it, but people want something done."
] |
>
Yeah no, they could spend the effort trying to actually rehouse these people and get them back in the work force instead of signing laws fining them money they obviously don't have to feed into the prison industry. Fuck outta here | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised.",
">\n\nWhy didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty!",
">\n\nJust like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s",
">\n\nWhen you talk to random people on reddit about homelessness you realize that unfortunately when many people say the \"homelessness problem\", they don't mean that there are homeless people, they mean that they have to see homeless people.\nMany people seem perfectly happy with out of sight out of mind when it comes to the homeless.",
">\n\nTypical conversation with a liberal (I'm a socdem) about homelessness:\nLiberal: \"the homelessness epidemic is inhumane. We must help these people.\"\nMe: \"yes, I agree with you 100%. Let's start a fundraiser to convert that old building into a homeless shelter or low income housing, so that-\"\nLiberal: \"ewwwww no, I don't want homeless people here. The property value of my family's house will go down and I don't wanna see a bunch of tweakers at night.\"\nMe: \".......... alright, I'll just do it myself. Sorry for bothering you.\"",
">\n\nHonest question, do you own a home yourself?",
">\n\nI'll answer your question if you tell me why you're asking. Seems like bait/a trap to me.",
">\n\nDude’s gonna pull the “WhY aReN’t YoU hOuSiNg ThEm??!!111",
">\n\nI own a home (well the bank does, but y'know), and I'd fully endorse using a nearby house as a shelter for people experiencing homelessness. Would it potentially lower property values? Maybe, but I don't really care. Would it potentially mean more petty crime in the area? Also maybe yes, but there are things that could be done to counter that, and the whole point is lifting people out of poverty so that crime isn't something they feel they need to resort to. So yeah, bring on the residential shelters!",
">\n\n\"We must solve homelessness by criminalizing it.\"\n\"We must stop abortion by outlawing it.\"\n\"You can't stop gun violence by outlawing guns!\"",
">\n\nDisgusting, inhumane and incredibly immoral. How is walking the earth and poverty a crime?",
">\n\n\nHow is walking the earth and poverty a crime?\n\nWhat's even funnier is that these people claim to be Christians, followers of a man who famously had \"no place to lay his head\" and traveled around mooching off of his followers.",
">\n\nMatthews 25:41-45",
">\n\nThe pillars of democracy are: robust public education, independent journalism, human rights, equality and justice. Promote the pillars of democracy in your house and amongst your friends. Talk about them, talk about how to re-establish them, how to amplify them. Get involved in every democratic process in your community too. Defend democracy good people - it is under direct attack. Rise up and defend democracy and the United States itself from this fascist Republican attack.",
">\n\nHow is the law not fair here? It is equally illegal for both the rich and poor to sleep under a bridge!\n/s",
">\n\nSomething tells me rich people still would never be prosecuted or fined for this lol",
">\n\nFor a party that prides itself on “Christian values” Republicans get off on some really evil shit.",
">\n\nDems involuntarily committing people isnt much better. It's not just a Blue v Red thing. It's a Rich v Poor thing.",
">\n\nOk but that's Eric Adams, he's a cop and a conservative, he's abnormal for Democrats.",
">\n\nGavin Newsome isnt (supposedly) conservative. Neither is Portland, where forced hospitalization of the homeless is also happening.\nAnd really, if he was abnormal, wed see the really blue places creating homes for the homeless. Please god tell me you have proof that I’m wrong though. I would happily be wrong about this.",
">\n\nOk I'll grant you that, but I would hope that these jurisdictions and leaders would not follow that particularly reprehensible lead.",
">\n\nWhy does “We need to get the homeless off the streets.” always sound so progressive in Europe and sinister in the US?",
">\n\nIn the US it often means just put them in prison instead of shoving them in cramped shelters",
">\n\nCapitalism can never solve homelessness, bc they dont make enough money from it. Hence why CA, NY, and WA continue to struggle with it, while places like Missouri make it even worse. There are no pro-homeless states in the US.",
">\n\nThey make a shitload of money off of it lol. Homeless shelters get paid for every bed they have filled. I used to work at a shelter and they’d let dudes stay who were clearly breaking rules or a danger to others because if they have unfilled beds they don’t receive as much money from the government. The entire game is keeping the shelter full, taking the money they give per person (let’s say the budget calls for 200 bucks of resources per resident) they do anything and everything to supply the lowest acceptable level of resources allowed, at as far under that 200 dollar limit as they can. Then they keep the excess money.",
">\n\nShelters aren’t solving homelessness. But good point on how most of our systems designed to help people are still just money making systems at the end of the day.",
">\n\nSpoiler alert, you can’t solve homelessness unless you can somehow force people to not be mentally ill or drug addicted. At the end of the day it has to start with the homeless person. No amount of forcing someone to do x y or z will solve this",
">\n\nCrimes committed against the homeless are already largely ignored. It’s only a matter of time before being homeless becomes grounds for sanctioned murder, like it’s fucking pest control.",
">\n\nLMAO I was homeless for a while and it already is.\nLots of unhoused folks particularly women go missing and never show back up.",
">\n\nThey'll put them in warehouses run by Geo Corp, then bill you, the taxpayer $750 per day for that \"service\". All of this nonsense, so that America can avoid looking at the reasons why there are so many homeless, and how to get someone back on their feet once homeless. It's dystopian.",
">\n\nHave to keep taxpayer dollars going to for-profit prisons somehow",
">\n\nThe choice is to either stay in a homeless shelter full of addicts and mentally ill people, or...? \nIt's so odd to me that we live in a \"free country\" but you can't even live in the woods because the woods is owned by somebody else.",
">\n\nImagine if we tried actually helping people for once instead of just punishing them.",
">\n\nOh you’re broke! Let’s just help you out with a little prison time too. It’s what Jesus would do.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nCities across the country have seen a backlash to attempts by officials to remove homeless encampments or limit where unhoused people can camp.\nProtesters marched through the downtown Chicago area in November to protest against the city's announcement that donated winterized tents for homeless people had to be removed for street cleaning, reported the Chicago Tribune.\nY Robelo, founder of the non-profit Feeding People Through Plants, provided the tents and criticized the city's treatment of homeless people.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: people^#1 city^#2 law^#3 homeless^#4 new^#5",
">\n\n‘Anti-homeless’ laws sound as stupid as ‘anti-sneezing’ laws. \nJust because you rule out something it doesn’t mean it ceases to exist, when the ‘offenders’ have little power over it.",
">\n\nIt’s almost like there’s money to be made in the privatisation of prisons or something.",
">\n\nJust making it illegal to be poor now so they can fill prisons and get slave labor from the inmates, on top of taking away their rights in general and making a profit from it.",
">\n\nWhen their prison budgets blow up at least they will have solved the homeless problem, by actually housing in a WAY more expensive way.\nLocking people is not a solution, it is cruel but that’s republicans.",
">\n\nIf there wasn't so much financial inequality, affordable housing, decent wages and healthcare for all, there wouldn't be anti-homeless laws. Jfc this is not hard but due to corruption and a broken system, here we are.",
">\n\nSo damned wrong!!!!",
">\n\nThis is a cash grab to fill private prisons.",
">\n\nIm not sure about other areas laws but up here in the PNW the new laws are going after large camp sites, and areas of increased crime/violence. \nMore notably the only ones in effect that make it illegal to sleep out in public is if there is a support center within walking distance and it has enough capacity to house the person. \nWe get a lot of people echoing the sentiment that its an attack on the homeless and what not but when you have someone setup a tent behind your backyard or see your family threatened youll change your tune too.",
">\n\nIf you set up actual housing for them then itd stop being seen as an attack.",
">\n\nAre you volunteering your backyard for their housing? \nBecause no one else is.",
">\n\nI mean, some people in Eugene do exactly that. But like, if you put a mentally unstable tweaker in a house, they'll just magically become a valuable part of society? Mentally ill cannot care for themselves. Putting homeless in houses isn't going to solve shit, they'll still be out there doing their thing. Being in a house isn't going to stop people from shitting on the sidewalk in front of your store if you piss them off.",
">\n\nYes thank you!\nThat is exactly why our area is focusing more on supporting services AND affordable housing. \nIm so tired of people claiming that the only solution to just build tiny villages or just let them camp out then everything will work itself out.",
">\n\nPeople don’t act as if it’s the only solution, it’s the required first step. Having housing makes all the rest of the support services infinitely easier.",
">\n\nWe should pass laws saying it’s illegal to have less than a million dollars.\nThat way, I would magically have a million dollars.",
">\n\nIsn't Missouri where Brett Favre and the governor stole millions of dollars of welfare funds to build a volleyball stadium for Favre's daughter's college in his name? Wonder why they're perpetually last in most important metrics... lol",
">\n\nMississippi",
">\n\nIt's really simple: anything that is required to maintain living should be guaranteed by society for all. Food, water, shelter, and healthcare--at a minimum. Beyond that, electricity, internet access, and transportation should also be included as guaranteed services. I would also include things like education and work and/or UBI.\nOur government has trillions and yet we somehow cannot guarantee a basic standard of living for every human being who lives here. It's shameful.",
">\n\nWhen you have homeless shitting and throwing used needles in your yard, you start to understand the anger behind these laws.\nThis isn't the right way to go about it, but people want something done.",
">\n\nIt seems most people here who are criticizing these policies don't have to actually live near homeless people. Anyone who lives in a downtown area or nearby knows how bad it is. We all have to smell and see the shit, piss and trash left by homeless people every day on our streets and even our entrances. People are also getting stabbed and beaten by homeless people. Cities are unsafe and filthy partly because of them. It's really easy to criticize these policies from your comfortable suburban home far away from all the homeless people. If you had to live near them, you would be the first to scream at city hall to do something about it."
] |
>
There are programs to help them, but you have to participate in the program. Lots of these people do not want that kind of help. They don't want a job. They prefer panhandling and being drug addicts.
Making it harder to live like that reroutes them to the help programs. | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised.",
">\n\nWhy didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty!",
">\n\nJust like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s",
">\n\nWhen you talk to random people on reddit about homelessness you realize that unfortunately when many people say the \"homelessness problem\", they don't mean that there are homeless people, they mean that they have to see homeless people.\nMany people seem perfectly happy with out of sight out of mind when it comes to the homeless.",
">\n\nTypical conversation with a liberal (I'm a socdem) about homelessness:\nLiberal: \"the homelessness epidemic is inhumane. We must help these people.\"\nMe: \"yes, I agree with you 100%. Let's start a fundraiser to convert that old building into a homeless shelter or low income housing, so that-\"\nLiberal: \"ewwwww no, I don't want homeless people here. The property value of my family's house will go down and I don't wanna see a bunch of tweakers at night.\"\nMe: \".......... alright, I'll just do it myself. Sorry for bothering you.\"",
">\n\nHonest question, do you own a home yourself?",
">\n\nI'll answer your question if you tell me why you're asking. Seems like bait/a trap to me.",
">\n\nDude’s gonna pull the “WhY aReN’t YoU hOuSiNg ThEm??!!111",
">\n\nI own a home (well the bank does, but y'know), and I'd fully endorse using a nearby house as a shelter for people experiencing homelessness. Would it potentially lower property values? Maybe, but I don't really care. Would it potentially mean more petty crime in the area? Also maybe yes, but there are things that could be done to counter that, and the whole point is lifting people out of poverty so that crime isn't something they feel they need to resort to. So yeah, bring on the residential shelters!",
">\n\n\"We must solve homelessness by criminalizing it.\"\n\"We must stop abortion by outlawing it.\"\n\"You can't stop gun violence by outlawing guns!\"",
">\n\nDisgusting, inhumane and incredibly immoral. How is walking the earth and poverty a crime?",
">\n\n\nHow is walking the earth and poverty a crime?\n\nWhat's even funnier is that these people claim to be Christians, followers of a man who famously had \"no place to lay his head\" and traveled around mooching off of his followers.",
">\n\nMatthews 25:41-45",
">\n\nThe pillars of democracy are: robust public education, independent journalism, human rights, equality and justice. Promote the pillars of democracy in your house and amongst your friends. Talk about them, talk about how to re-establish them, how to amplify them. Get involved in every democratic process in your community too. Defend democracy good people - it is under direct attack. Rise up and defend democracy and the United States itself from this fascist Republican attack.",
">\n\nHow is the law not fair here? It is equally illegal for both the rich and poor to sleep under a bridge!\n/s",
">\n\nSomething tells me rich people still would never be prosecuted or fined for this lol",
">\n\nFor a party that prides itself on “Christian values” Republicans get off on some really evil shit.",
">\n\nDems involuntarily committing people isnt much better. It's not just a Blue v Red thing. It's a Rich v Poor thing.",
">\n\nOk but that's Eric Adams, he's a cop and a conservative, he's abnormal for Democrats.",
">\n\nGavin Newsome isnt (supposedly) conservative. Neither is Portland, where forced hospitalization of the homeless is also happening.\nAnd really, if he was abnormal, wed see the really blue places creating homes for the homeless. Please god tell me you have proof that I’m wrong though. I would happily be wrong about this.",
">\n\nOk I'll grant you that, but I would hope that these jurisdictions and leaders would not follow that particularly reprehensible lead.",
">\n\nWhy does “We need to get the homeless off the streets.” always sound so progressive in Europe and sinister in the US?",
">\n\nIn the US it often means just put them in prison instead of shoving them in cramped shelters",
">\n\nCapitalism can never solve homelessness, bc they dont make enough money from it. Hence why CA, NY, and WA continue to struggle with it, while places like Missouri make it even worse. There are no pro-homeless states in the US.",
">\n\nThey make a shitload of money off of it lol. Homeless shelters get paid for every bed they have filled. I used to work at a shelter and they’d let dudes stay who were clearly breaking rules or a danger to others because if they have unfilled beds they don’t receive as much money from the government. The entire game is keeping the shelter full, taking the money they give per person (let’s say the budget calls for 200 bucks of resources per resident) they do anything and everything to supply the lowest acceptable level of resources allowed, at as far under that 200 dollar limit as they can. Then they keep the excess money.",
">\n\nShelters aren’t solving homelessness. But good point on how most of our systems designed to help people are still just money making systems at the end of the day.",
">\n\nSpoiler alert, you can’t solve homelessness unless you can somehow force people to not be mentally ill or drug addicted. At the end of the day it has to start with the homeless person. No amount of forcing someone to do x y or z will solve this",
">\n\nCrimes committed against the homeless are already largely ignored. It’s only a matter of time before being homeless becomes grounds for sanctioned murder, like it’s fucking pest control.",
">\n\nLMAO I was homeless for a while and it already is.\nLots of unhoused folks particularly women go missing and never show back up.",
">\n\nThey'll put them in warehouses run by Geo Corp, then bill you, the taxpayer $750 per day for that \"service\". All of this nonsense, so that America can avoid looking at the reasons why there are so many homeless, and how to get someone back on their feet once homeless. It's dystopian.",
">\n\nHave to keep taxpayer dollars going to for-profit prisons somehow",
">\n\nThe choice is to either stay in a homeless shelter full of addicts and mentally ill people, or...? \nIt's so odd to me that we live in a \"free country\" but you can't even live in the woods because the woods is owned by somebody else.",
">\n\nImagine if we tried actually helping people for once instead of just punishing them.",
">\n\nOh you’re broke! Let’s just help you out with a little prison time too. It’s what Jesus would do.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nCities across the country have seen a backlash to attempts by officials to remove homeless encampments or limit where unhoused people can camp.\nProtesters marched through the downtown Chicago area in November to protest against the city's announcement that donated winterized tents for homeless people had to be removed for street cleaning, reported the Chicago Tribune.\nY Robelo, founder of the non-profit Feeding People Through Plants, provided the tents and criticized the city's treatment of homeless people.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: people^#1 city^#2 law^#3 homeless^#4 new^#5",
">\n\n‘Anti-homeless’ laws sound as stupid as ‘anti-sneezing’ laws. \nJust because you rule out something it doesn’t mean it ceases to exist, when the ‘offenders’ have little power over it.",
">\n\nIt’s almost like there’s money to be made in the privatisation of prisons or something.",
">\n\nJust making it illegal to be poor now so they can fill prisons and get slave labor from the inmates, on top of taking away their rights in general and making a profit from it.",
">\n\nWhen their prison budgets blow up at least they will have solved the homeless problem, by actually housing in a WAY more expensive way.\nLocking people is not a solution, it is cruel but that’s republicans.",
">\n\nIf there wasn't so much financial inequality, affordable housing, decent wages and healthcare for all, there wouldn't be anti-homeless laws. Jfc this is not hard but due to corruption and a broken system, here we are.",
">\n\nSo damned wrong!!!!",
">\n\nThis is a cash grab to fill private prisons.",
">\n\nIm not sure about other areas laws but up here in the PNW the new laws are going after large camp sites, and areas of increased crime/violence. \nMore notably the only ones in effect that make it illegal to sleep out in public is if there is a support center within walking distance and it has enough capacity to house the person. \nWe get a lot of people echoing the sentiment that its an attack on the homeless and what not but when you have someone setup a tent behind your backyard or see your family threatened youll change your tune too.",
">\n\nIf you set up actual housing for them then itd stop being seen as an attack.",
">\n\nAre you volunteering your backyard for their housing? \nBecause no one else is.",
">\n\nI mean, some people in Eugene do exactly that. But like, if you put a mentally unstable tweaker in a house, they'll just magically become a valuable part of society? Mentally ill cannot care for themselves. Putting homeless in houses isn't going to solve shit, they'll still be out there doing their thing. Being in a house isn't going to stop people from shitting on the sidewalk in front of your store if you piss them off.",
">\n\nYes thank you!\nThat is exactly why our area is focusing more on supporting services AND affordable housing. \nIm so tired of people claiming that the only solution to just build tiny villages or just let them camp out then everything will work itself out.",
">\n\nPeople don’t act as if it’s the only solution, it’s the required first step. Having housing makes all the rest of the support services infinitely easier.",
">\n\nWe should pass laws saying it’s illegal to have less than a million dollars.\nThat way, I would magically have a million dollars.",
">\n\nIsn't Missouri where Brett Favre and the governor stole millions of dollars of welfare funds to build a volleyball stadium for Favre's daughter's college in his name? Wonder why they're perpetually last in most important metrics... lol",
">\n\nMississippi",
">\n\nIt's really simple: anything that is required to maintain living should be guaranteed by society for all. Food, water, shelter, and healthcare--at a minimum. Beyond that, electricity, internet access, and transportation should also be included as guaranteed services. I would also include things like education and work and/or UBI.\nOur government has trillions and yet we somehow cannot guarantee a basic standard of living for every human being who lives here. It's shameful.",
">\n\nWhen you have homeless shitting and throwing used needles in your yard, you start to understand the anger behind these laws.\nThis isn't the right way to go about it, but people want something done.",
">\n\nIt seems most people here who are criticizing these policies don't have to actually live near homeless people. Anyone who lives in a downtown area or nearby knows how bad it is. We all have to smell and see the shit, piss and trash left by homeless people every day on our streets and even our entrances. People are also getting stabbed and beaten by homeless people. Cities are unsafe and filthy partly because of them. It's really easy to criticize these policies from your comfortable suburban home far away from all the homeless people. If you had to live near them, you would be the first to scream at city hall to do something about it.",
">\n\nYeah no, they could spend the effort trying to actually rehouse these people and get them back in the work force instead of signing laws fining them money they obviously don't have to feed into the prison industry. Fuck outta here"
] |
>
No it doesn’t. Making life harder to live means people do whatever it takes to make it easier. Including especially the drugs you folks love to pretend is a problem for homeless people but not for you. | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised.",
">\n\nWhy didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty!",
">\n\nJust like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s",
">\n\nWhen you talk to random people on reddit about homelessness you realize that unfortunately when many people say the \"homelessness problem\", they don't mean that there are homeless people, they mean that they have to see homeless people.\nMany people seem perfectly happy with out of sight out of mind when it comes to the homeless.",
">\n\nTypical conversation with a liberal (I'm a socdem) about homelessness:\nLiberal: \"the homelessness epidemic is inhumane. We must help these people.\"\nMe: \"yes, I agree with you 100%. Let's start a fundraiser to convert that old building into a homeless shelter or low income housing, so that-\"\nLiberal: \"ewwwww no, I don't want homeless people here. The property value of my family's house will go down and I don't wanna see a bunch of tweakers at night.\"\nMe: \".......... alright, I'll just do it myself. Sorry for bothering you.\"",
">\n\nHonest question, do you own a home yourself?",
">\n\nI'll answer your question if you tell me why you're asking. Seems like bait/a trap to me.",
">\n\nDude’s gonna pull the “WhY aReN’t YoU hOuSiNg ThEm??!!111",
">\n\nI own a home (well the bank does, but y'know), and I'd fully endorse using a nearby house as a shelter for people experiencing homelessness. Would it potentially lower property values? Maybe, but I don't really care. Would it potentially mean more petty crime in the area? Also maybe yes, but there are things that could be done to counter that, and the whole point is lifting people out of poverty so that crime isn't something they feel they need to resort to. So yeah, bring on the residential shelters!",
">\n\n\"We must solve homelessness by criminalizing it.\"\n\"We must stop abortion by outlawing it.\"\n\"You can't stop gun violence by outlawing guns!\"",
">\n\nDisgusting, inhumane and incredibly immoral. How is walking the earth and poverty a crime?",
">\n\n\nHow is walking the earth and poverty a crime?\n\nWhat's even funnier is that these people claim to be Christians, followers of a man who famously had \"no place to lay his head\" and traveled around mooching off of his followers.",
">\n\nMatthews 25:41-45",
">\n\nThe pillars of democracy are: robust public education, independent journalism, human rights, equality and justice. Promote the pillars of democracy in your house and amongst your friends. Talk about them, talk about how to re-establish them, how to amplify them. Get involved in every democratic process in your community too. Defend democracy good people - it is under direct attack. Rise up and defend democracy and the United States itself from this fascist Republican attack.",
">\n\nHow is the law not fair here? It is equally illegal for both the rich and poor to sleep under a bridge!\n/s",
">\n\nSomething tells me rich people still would never be prosecuted or fined for this lol",
">\n\nFor a party that prides itself on “Christian values” Republicans get off on some really evil shit.",
">\n\nDems involuntarily committing people isnt much better. It's not just a Blue v Red thing. It's a Rich v Poor thing.",
">\n\nOk but that's Eric Adams, he's a cop and a conservative, he's abnormal for Democrats.",
">\n\nGavin Newsome isnt (supposedly) conservative. Neither is Portland, where forced hospitalization of the homeless is also happening.\nAnd really, if he was abnormal, wed see the really blue places creating homes for the homeless. Please god tell me you have proof that I’m wrong though. I would happily be wrong about this.",
">\n\nOk I'll grant you that, but I would hope that these jurisdictions and leaders would not follow that particularly reprehensible lead.",
">\n\nWhy does “We need to get the homeless off the streets.” always sound so progressive in Europe and sinister in the US?",
">\n\nIn the US it often means just put them in prison instead of shoving them in cramped shelters",
">\n\nCapitalism can never solve homelessness, bc they dont make enough money from it. Hence why CA, NY, and WA continue to struggle with it, while places like Missouri make it even worse. There are no pro-homeless states in the US.",
">\n\nThey make a shitload of money off of it lol. Homeless shelters get paid for every bed they have filled. I used to work at a shelter and they’d let dudes stay who were clearly breaking rules or a danger to others because if they have unfilled beds they don’t receive as much money from the government. The entire game is keeping the shelter full, taking the money they give per person (let’s say the budget calls for 200 bucks of resources per resident) they do anything and everything to supply the lowest acceptable level of resources allowed, at as far under that 200 dollar limit as they can. Then they keep the excess money.",
">\n\nShelters aren’t solving homelessness. But good point on how most of our systems designed to help people are still just money making systems at the end of the day.",
">\n\nSpoiler alert, you can’t solve homelessness unless you can somehow force people to not be mentally ill or drug addicted. At the end of the day it has to start with the homeless person. No amount of forcing someone to do x y or z will solve this",
">\n\nCrimes committed against the homeless are already largely ignored. It’s only a matter of time before being homeless becomes grounds for sanctioned murder, like it’s fucking pest control.",
">\n\nLMAO I was homeless for a while and it already is.\nLots of unhoused folks particularly women go missing and never show back up.",
">\n\nThey'll put them in warehouses run by Geo Corp, then bill you, the taxpayer $750 per day for that \"service\". All of this nonsense, so that America can avoid looking at the reasons why there are so many homeless, and how to get someone back on their feet once homeless. It's dystopian.",
">\n\nHave to keep taxpayer dollars going to for-profit prisons somehow",
">\n\nThe choice is to either stay in a homeless shelter full of addicts and mentally ill people, or...? \nIt's so odd to me that we live in a \"free country\" but you can't even live in the woods because the woods is owned by somebody else.",
">\n\nImagine if we tried actually helping people for once instead of just punishing them.",
">\n\nOh you’re broke! Let’s just help you out with a little prison time too. It’s what Jesus would do.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nCities across the country have seen a backlash to attempts by officials to remove homeless encampments or limit where unhoused people can camp.\nProtesters marched through the downtown Chicago area in November to protest against the city's announcement that donated winterized tents for homeless people had to be removed for street cleaning, reported the Chicago Tribune.\nY Robelo, founder of the non-profit Feeding People Through Plants, provided the tents and criticized the city's treatment of homeless people.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: people^#1 city^#2 law^#3 homeless^#4 new^#5",
">\n\n‘Anti-homeless’ laws sound as stupid as ‘anti-sneezing’ laws. \nJust because you rule out something it doesn’t mean it ceases to exist, when the ‘offenders’ have little power over it.",
">\n\nIt’s almost like there’s money to be made in the privatisation of prisons or something.",
">\n\nJust making it illegal to be poor now so they can fill prisons and get slave labor from the inmates, on top of taking away their rights in general and making a profit from it.",
">\n\nWhen their prison budgets blow up at least they will have solved the homeless problem, by actually housing in a WAY more expensive way.\nLocking people is not a solution, it is cruel but that’s republicans.",
">\n\nIf there wasn't so much financial inequality, affordable housing, decent wages and healthcare for all, there wouldn't be anti-homeless laws. Jfc this is not hard but due to corruption and a broken system, here we are.",
">\n\nSo damned wrong!!!!",
">\n\nThis is a cash grab to fill private prisons.",
">\n\nIm not sure about other areas laws but up here in the PNW the new laws are going after large camp sites, and areas of increased crime/violence. \nMore notably the only ones in effect that make it illegal to sleep out in public is if there is a support center within walking distance and it has enough capacity to house the person. \nWe get a lot of people echoing the sentiment that its an attack on the homeless and what not but when you have someone setup a tent behind your backyard or see your family threatened youll change your tune too.",
">\n\nIf you set up actual housing for them then itd stop being seen as an attack.",
">\n\nAre you volunteering your backyard for their housing? \nBecause no one else is.",
">\n\nI mean, some people in Eugene do exactly that. But like, if you put a mentally unstable tweaker in a house, they'll just magically become a valuable part of society? Mentally ill cannot care for themselves. Putting homeless in houses isn't going to solve shit, they'll still be out there doing their thing. Being in a house isn't going to stop people from shitting on the sidewalk in front of your store if you piss them off.",
">\n\nYes thank you!\nThat is exactly why our area is focusing more on supporting services AND affordable housing. \nIm so tired of people claiming that the only solution to just build tiny villages or just let them camp out then everything will work itself out.",
">\n\nPeople don’t act as if it’s the only solution, it’s the required first step. Having housing makes all the rest of the support services infinitely easier.",
">\n\nWe should pass laws saying it’s illegal to have less than a million dollars.\nThat way, I would magically have a million dollars.",
">\n\nIsn't Missouri where Brett Favre and the governor stole millions of dollars of welfare funds to build a volleyball stadium for Favre's daughter's college in his name? Wonder why they're perpetually last in most important metrics... lol",
">\n\nMississippi",
">\n\nIt's really simple: anything that is required to maintain living should be guaranteed by society for all. Food, water, shelter, and healthcare--at a minimum. Beyond that, electricity, internet access, and transportation should also be included as guaranteed services. I would also include things like education and work and/or UBI.\nOur government has trillions and yet we somehow cannot guarantee a basic standard of living for every human being who lives here. It's shameful.",
">\n\nWhen you have homeless shitting and throwing used needles in your yard, you start to understand the anger behind these laws.\nThis isn't the right way to go about it, but people want something done.",
">\n\nIt seems most people here who are criticizing these policies don't have to actually live near homeless people. Anyone who lives in a downtown area or nearby knows how bad it is. We all have to smell and see the shit, piss and trash left by homeless people every day on our streets and even our entrances. People are also getting stabbed and beaten by homeless people. Cities are unsafe and filthy partly because of them. It's really easy to criticize these policies from your comfortable suburban home far away from all the homeless people. If you had to live near them, you would be the first to scream at city hall to do something about it.",
">\n\nYeah no, they could spend the effort trying to actually rehouse these people and get them back in the work force instead of signing laws fining them money they obviously don't have to feed into the prison industry. Fuck outta here",
">\n\nThere are programs to help them, but you have to participate in the program. Lots of these people do not want that kind of help. They don't want a job. They prefer panhandling and being drug addicts. \nMaking it harder to live like that reroutes them to the help programs."
] |
>
So much for "the land of the free" | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised.",
">\n\nWhy didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty!",
">\n\nJust like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s",
">\n\nWhen you talk to random people on reddit about homelessness you realize that unfortunately when many people say the \"homelessness problem\", they don't mean that there are homeless people, they mean that they have to see homeless people.\nMany people seem perfectly happy with out of sight out of mind when it comes to the homeless.",
">\n\nTypical conversation with a liberal (I'm a socdem) about homelessness:\nLiberal: \"the homelessness epidemic is inhumane. We must help these people.\"\nMe: \"yes, I agree with you 100%. Let's start a fundraiser to convert that old building into a homeless shelter or low income housing, so that-\"\nLiberal: \"ewwwww no, I don't want homeless people here. The property value of my family's house will go down and I don't wanna see a bunch of tweakers at night.\"\nMe: \".......... alright, I'll just do it myself. Sorry for bothering you.\"",
">\n\nHonest question, do you own a home yourself?",
">\n\nI'll answer your question if you tell me why you're asking. Seems like bait/a trap to me.",
">\n\nDude’s gonna pull the “WhY aReN’t YoU hOuSiNg ThEm??!!111",
">\n\nI own a home (well the bank does, but y'know), and I'd fully endorse using a nearby house as a shelter for people experiencing homelessness. Would it potentially lower property values? Maybe, but I don't really care. Would it potentially mean more petty crime in the area? Also maybe yes, but there are things that could be done to counter that, and the whole point is lifting people out of poverty so that crime isn't something they feel they need to resort to. So yeah, bring on the residential shelters!",
">\n\n\"We must solve homelessness by criminalizing it.\"\n\"We must stop abortion by outlawing it.\"\n\"You can't stop gun violence by outlawing guns!\"",
">\n\nDisgusting, inhumane and incredibly immoral. How is walking the earth and poverty a crime?",
">\n\n\nHow is walking the earth and poverty a crime?\n\nWhat's even funnier is that these people claim to be Christians, followers of a man who famously had \"no place to lay his head\" and traveled around mooching off of his followers.",
">\n\nMatthews 25:41-45",
">\n\nThe pillars of democracy are: robust public education, independent journalism, human rights, equality and justice. Promote the pillars of democracy in your house and amongst your friends. Talk about them, talk about how to re-establish them, how to amplify them. Get involved in every democratic process in your community too. Defend democracy good people - it is under direct attack. Rise up and defend democracy and the United States itself from this fascist Republican attack.",
">\n\nHow is the law not fair here? It is equally illegal for both the rich and poor to sleep under a bridge!\n/s",
">\n\nSomething tells me rich people still would never be prosecuted or fined for this lol",
">\n\nFor a party that prides itself on “Christian values” Republicans get off on some really evil shit.",
">\n\nDems involuntarily committing people isnt much better. It's not just a Blue v Red thing. It's a Rich v Poor thing.",
">\n\nOk but that's Eric Adams, he's a cop and a conservative, he's abnormal for Democrats.",
">\n\nGavin Newsome isnt (supposedly) conservative. Neither is Portland, where forced hospitalization of the homeless is also happening.\nAnd really, if he was abnormal, wed see the really blue places creating homes for the homeless. Please god tell me you have proof that I’m wrong though. I would happily be wrong about this.",
">\n\nOk I'll grant you that, but I would hope that these jurisdictions and leaders would not follow that particularly reprehensible lead.",
">\n\nWhy does “We need to get the homeless off the streets.” always sound so progressive in Europe and sinister in the US?",
">\n\nIn the US it often means just put them in prison instead of shoving them in cramped shelters",
">\n\nCapitalism can never solve homelessness, bc they dont make enough money from it. Hence why CA, NY, and WA continue to struggle with it, while places like Missouri make it even worse. There are no pro-homeless states in the US.",
">\n\nThey make a shitload of money off of it lol. Homeless shelters get paid for every bed they have filled. I used to work at a shelter and they’d let dudes stay who were clearly breaking rules or a danger to others because if they have unfilled beds they don’t receive as much money from the government. The entire game is keeping the shelter full, taking the money they give per person (let’s say the budget calls for 200 bucks of resources per resident) they do anything and everything to supply the lowest acceptable level of resources allowed, at as far under that 200 dollar limit as they can. Then they keep the excess money.",
">\n\nShelters aren’t solving homelessness. But good point on how most of our systems designed to help people are still just money making systems at the end of the day.",
">\n\nSpoiler alert, you can’t solve homelessness unless you can somehow force people to not be mentally ill or drug addicted. At the end of the day it has to start with the homeless person. No amount of forcing someone to do x y or z will solve this",
">\n\nCrimes committed against the homeless are already largely ignored. It’s only a matter of time before being homeless becomes grounds for sanctioned murder, like it’s fucking pest control.",
">\n\nLMAO I was homeless for a while and it already is.\nLots of unhoused folks particularly women go missing and never show back up.",
">\n\nThey'll put them in warehouses run by Geo Corp, then bill you, the taxpayer $750 per day for that \"service\". All of this nonsense, so that America can avoid looking at the reasons why there are so many homeless, and how to get someone back on their feet once homeless. It's dystopian.",
">\n\nHave to keep taxpayer dollars going to for-profit prisons somehow",
">\n\nThe choice is to either stay in a homeless shelter full of addicts and mentally ill people, or...? \nIt's so odd to me that we live in a \"free country\" but you can't even live in the woods because the woods is owned by somebody else.",
">\n\nImagine if we tried actually helping people for once instead of just punishing them.",
">\n\nOh you’re broke! Let’s just help you out with a little prison time too. It’s what Jesus would do.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nCities across the country have seen a backlash to attempts by officials to remove homeless encampments or limit where unhoused people can camp.\nProtesters marched through the downtown Chicago area in November to protest against the city's announcement that donated winterized tents for homeless people had to be removed for street cleaning, reported the Chicago Tribune.\nY Robelo, founder of the non-profit Feeding People Through Plants, provided the tents and criticized the city's treatment of homeless people.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: people^#1 city^#2 law^#3 homeless^#4 new^#5",
">\n\n‘Anti-homeless’ laws sound as stupid as ‘anti-sneezing’ laws. \nJust because you rule out something it doesn’t mean it ceases to exist, when the ‘offenders’ have little power over it.",
">\n\nIt’s almost like there’s money to be made in the privatisation of prisons or something.",
">\n\nJust making it illegal to be poor now so they can fill prisons and get slave labor from the inmates, on top of taking away their rights in general and making a profit from it.",
">\n\nWhen their prison budgets blow up at least they will have solved the homeless problem, by actually housing in a WAY more expensive way.\nLocking people is not a solution, it is cruel but that’s republicans.",
">\n\nIf there wasn't so much financial inequality, affordable housing, decent wages and healthcare for all, there wouldn't be anti-homeless laws. Jfc this is not hard but due to corruption and a broken system, here we are.",
">\n\nSo damned wrong!!!!",
">\n\nThis is a cash grab to fill private prisons.",
">\n\nIm not sure about other areas laws but up here in the PNW the new laws are going after large camp sites, and areas of increased crime/violence. \nMore notably the only ones in effect that make it illegal to sleep out in public is if there is a support center within walking distance and it has enough capacity to house the person. \nWe get a lot of people echoing the sentiment that its an attack on the homeless and what not but when you have someone setup a tent behind your backyard or see your family threatened youll change your tune too.",
">\n\nIf you set up actual housing for them then itd stop being seen as an attack.",
">\n\nAre you volunteering your backyard for their housing? \nBecause no one else is.",
">\n\nI mean, some people in Eugene do exactly that. But like, if you put a mentally unstable tweaker in a house, they'll just magically become a valuable part of society? Mentally ill cannot care for themselves. Putting homeless in houses isn't going to solve shit, they'll still be out there doing their thing. Being in a house isn't going to stop people from shitting on the sidewalk in front of your store if you piss them off.",
">\n\nYes thank you!\nThat is exactly why our area is focusing more on supporting services AND affordable housing. \nIm so tired of people claiming that the only solution to just build tiny villages or just let them camp out then everything will work itself out.",
">\n\nPeople don’t act as if it’s the only solution, it’s the required first step. Having housing makes all the rest of the support services infinitely easier.",
">\n\nWe should pass laws saying it’s illegal to have less than a million dollars.\nThat way, I would magically have a million dollars.",
">\n\nIsn't Missouri where Brett Favre and the governor stole millions of dollars of welfare funds to build a volleyball stadium for Favre's daughter's college in his name? Wonder why they're perpetually last in most important metrics... lol",
">\n\nMississippi",
">\n\nIt's really simple: anything that is required to maintain living should be guaranteed by society for all. Food, water, shelter, and healthcare--at a minimum. Beyond that, electricity, internet access, and transportation should also be included as guaranteed services. I would also include things like education and work and/or UBI.\nOur government has trillions and yet we somehow cannot guarantee a basic standard of living for every human being who lives here. It's shameful.",
">\n\nWhen you have homeless shitting and throwing used needles in your yard, you start to understand the anger behind these laws.\nThis isn't the right way to go about it, but people want something done.",
">\n\nIt seems most people here who are criticizing these policies don't have to actually live near homeless people. Anyone who lives in a downtown area or nearby knows how bad it is. We all have to smell and see the shit, piss and trash left by homeless people every day on our streets and even our entrances. People are also getting stabbed and beaten by homeless people. Cities are unsafe and filthy partly because of them. It's really easy to criticize these policies from your comfortable suburban home far away from all the homeless people. If you had to live near them, you would be the first to scream at city hall to do something about it.",
">\n\nYeah no, they could spend the effort trying to actually rehouse these people and get them back in the work force instead of signing laws fining them money they obviously don't have to feed into the prison industry. Fuck outta here",
">\n\nThere are programs to help them, but you have to participate in the program. Lots of these people do not want that kind of help. They don't want a job. They prefer panhandling and being drug addicts. \nMaking it harder to live like that reroutes them to the help programs.",
">\n\nNo it doesn’t. Making life harder to live means people do whatever it takes to make it easier. Including especially the drugs you folks love to pretend is a problem for homeless people but not for you."
] |
>
This is sick. Fuck this place man. | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised.",
">\n\nWhy didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty!",
">\n\nJust like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s",
">\n\nWhen you talk to random people on reddit about homelessness you realize that unfortunately when many people say the \"homelessness problem\", they don't mean that there are homeless people, they mean that they have to see homeless people.\nMany people seem perfectly happy with out of sight out of mind when it comes to the homeless.",
">\n\nTypical conversation with a liberal (I'm a socdem) about homelessness:\nLiberal: \"the homelessness epidemic is inhumane. We must help these people.\"\nMe: \"yes, I agree with you 100%. Let's start a fundraiser to convert that old building into a homeless shelter or low income housing, so that-\"\nLiberal: \"ewwwww no, I don't want homeless people here. The property value of my family's house will go down and I don't wanna see a bunch of tweakers at night.\"\nMe: \".......... alright, I'll just do it myself. Sorry for bothering you.\"",
">\n\nHonest question, do you own a home yourself?",
">\n\nI'll answer your question if you tell me why you're asking. Seems like bait/a trap to me.",
">\n\nDude’s gonna pull the “WhY aReN’t YoU hOuSiNg ThEm??!!111",
">\n\nI own a home (well the bank does, but y'know), and I'd fully endorse using a nearby house as a shelter for people experiencing homelessness. Would it potentially lower property values? Maybe, but I don't really care. Would it potentially mean more petty crime in the area? Also maybe yes, but there are things that could be done to counter that, and the whole point is lifting people out of poverty so that crime isn't something they feel they need to resort to. So yeah, bring on the residential shelters!",
">\n\n\"We must solve homelessness by criminalizing it.\"\n\"We must stop abortion by outlawing it.\"\n\"You can't stop gun violence by outlawing guns!\"",
">\n\nDisgusting, inhumane and incredibly immoral. How is walking the earth and poverty a crime?",
">\n\n\nHow is walking the earth and poverty a crime?\n\nWhat's even funnier is that these people claim to be Christians, followers of a man who famously had \"no place to lay his head\" and traveled around mooching off of his followers.",
">\n\nMatthews 25:41-45",
">\n\nThe pillars of democracy are: robust public education, independent journalism, human rights, equality and justice. Promote the pillars of democracy in your house and amongst your friends. Talk about them, talk about how to re-establish them, how to amplify them. Get involved in every democratic process in your community too. Defend democracy good people - it is under direct attack. Rise up and defend democracy and the United States itself from this fascist Republican attack.",
">\n\nHow is the law not fair here? It is equally illegal for both the rich and poor to sleep under a bridge!\n/s",
">\n\nSomething tells me rich people still would never be prosecuted or fined for this lol",
">\n\nFor a party that prides itself on “Christian values” Republicans get off on some really evil shit.",
">\n\nDems involuntarily committing people isnt much better. It's not just a Blue v Red thing. It's a Rich v Poor thing.",
">\n\nOk but that's Eric Adams, he's a cop and a conservative, he's abnormal for Democrats.",
">\n\nGavin Newsome isnt (supposedly) conservative. Neither is Portland, where forced hospitalization of the homeless is also happening.\nAnd really, if he was abnormal, wed see the really blue places creating homes for the homeless. Please god tell me you have proof that I’m wrong though. I would happily be wrong about this.",
">\n\nOk I'll grant you that, but I would hope that these jurisdictions and leaders would not follow that particularly reprehensible lead.",
">\n\nWhy does “We need to get the homeless off the streets.” always sound so progressive in Europe and sinister in the US?",
">\n\nIn the US it often means just put them in prison instead of shoving them in cramped shelters",
">\n\nCapitalism can never solve homelessness, bc they dont make enough money from it. Hence why CA, NY, and WA continue to struggle with it, while places like Missouri make it even worse. There are no pro-homeless states in the US.",
">\n\nThey make a shitload of money off of it lol. Homeless shelters get paid for every bed they have filled. I used to work at a shelter and they’d let dudes stay who were clearly breaking rules or a danger to others because if they have unfilled beds they don’t receive as much money from the government. The entire game is keeping the shelter full, taking the money they give per person (let’s say the budget calls for 200 bucks of resources per resident) they do anything and everything to supply the lowest acceptable level of resources allowed, at as far under that 200 dollar limit as they can. Then they keep the excess money.",
">\n\nShelters aren’t solving homelessness. But good point on how most of our systems designed to help people are still just money making systems at the end of the day.",
">\n\nSpoiler alert, you can’t solve homelessness unless you can somehow force people to not be mentally ill or drug addicted. At the end of the day it has to start with the homeless person. No amount of forcing someone to do x y or z will solve this",
">\n\nCrimes committed against the homeless are already largely ignored. It’s only a matter of time before being homeless becomes grounds for sanctioned murder, like it’s fucking pest control.",
">\n\nLMAO I was homeless for a while and it already is.\nLots of unhoused folks particularly women go missing and never show back up.",
">\n\nThey'll put them in warehouses run by Geo Corp, then bill you, the taxpayer $750 per day for that \"service\". All of this nonsense, so that America can avoid looking at the reasons why there are so many homeless, and how to get someone back on their feet once homeless. It's dystopian.",
">\n\nHave to keep taxpayer dollars going to for-profit prisons somehow",
">\n\nThe choice is to either stay in a homeless shelter full of addicts and mentally ill people, or...? \nIt's so odd to me that we live in a \"free country\" but you can't even live in the woods because the woods is owned by somebody else.",
">\n\nImagine if we tried actually helping people for once instead of just punishing them.",
">\n\nOh you’re broke! Let’s just help you out with a little prison time too. It’s what Jesus would do.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nCities across the country have seen a backlash to attempts by officials to remove homeless encampments or limit where unhoused people can camp.\nProtesters marched through the downtown Chicago area in November to protest against the city's announcement that donated winterized tents for homeless people had to be removed for street cleaning, reported the Chicago Tribune.\nY Robelo, founder of the non-profit Feeding People Through Plants, provided the tents and criticized the city's treatment of homeless people.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: people^#1 city^#2 law^#3 homeless^#4 new^#5",
">\n\n‘Anti-homeless’ laws sound as stupid as ‘anti-sneezing’ laws. \nJust because you rule out something it doesn’t mean it ceases to exist, when the ‘offenders’ have little power over it.",
">\n\nIt’s almost like there’s money to be made in the privatisation of prisons or something.",
">\n\nJust making it illegal to be poor now so they can fill prisons and get slave labor from the inmates, on top of taking away their rights in general and making a profit from it.",
">\n\nWhen their prison budgets blow up at least they will have solved the homeless problem, by actually housing in a WAY more expensive way.\nLocking people is not a solution, it is cruel but that’s republicans.",
">\n\nIf there wasn't so much financial inequality, affordable housing, decent wages and healthcare for all, there wouldn't be anti-homeless laws. Jfc this is not hard but due to corruption and a broken system, here we are.",
">\n\nSo damned wrong!!!!",
">\n\nThis is a cash grab to fill private prisons.",
">\n\nIm not sure about other areas laws but up here in the PNW the new laws are going after large camp sites, and areas of increased crime/violence. \nMore notably the only ones in effect that make it illegal to sleep out in public is if there is a support center within walking distance and it has enough capacity to house the person. \nWe get a lot of people echoing the sentiment that its an attack on the homeless and what not but when you have someone setup a tent behind your backyard or see your family threatened youll change your tune too.",
">\n\nIf you set up actual housing for them then itd stop being seen as an attack.",
">\n\nAre you volunteering your backyard for their housing? \nBecause no one else is.",
">\n\nI mean, some people in Eugene do exactly that. But like, if you put a mentally unstable tweaker in a house, they'll just magically become a valuable part of society? Mentally ill cannot care for themselves. Putting homeless in houses isn't going to solve shit, they'll still be out there doing their thing. Being in a house isn't going to stop people from shitting on the sidewalk in front of your store if you piss them off.",
">\n\nYes thank you!\nThat is exactly why our area is focusing more on supporting services AND affordable housing. \nIm so tired of people claiming that the only solution to just build tiny villages or just let them camp out then everything will work itself out.",
">\n\nPeople don’t act as if it’s the only solution, it’s the required first step. Having housing makes all the rest of the support services infinitely easier.",
">\n\nWe should pass laws saying it’s illegal to have less than a million dollars.\nThat way, I would magically have a million dollars.",
">\n\nIsn't Missouri where Brett Favre and the governor stole millions of dollars of welfare funds to build a volleyball stadium for Favre's daughter's college in his name? Wonder why they're perpetually last in most important metrics... lol",
">\n\nMississippi",
">\n\nIt's really simple: anything that is required to maintain living should be guaranteed by society for all. Food, water, shelter, and healthcare--at a minimum. Beyond that, electricity, internet access, and transportation should also be included as guaranteed services. I would also include things like education and work and/or UBI.\nOur government has trillions and yet we somehow cannot guarantee a basic standard of living for every human being who lives here. It's shameful.",
">\n\nWhen you have homeless shitting and throwing used needles in your yard, you start to understand the anger behind these laws.\nThis isn't the right way to go about it, but people want something done.",
">\n\nIt seems most people here who are criticizing these policies don't have to actually live near homeless people. Anyone who lives in a downtown area or nearby knows how bad it is. We all have to smell and see the shit, piss and trash left by homeless people every day on our streets and even our entrances. People are also getting stabbed and beaten by homeless people. Cities are unsafe and filthy partly because of them. It's really easy to criticize these policies from your comfortable suburban home far away from all the homeless people. If you had to live near them, you would be the first to scream at city hall to do something about it.",
">\n\nYeah no, they could spend the effort trying to actually rehouse these people and get them back in the work force instead of signing laws fining them money they obviously don't have to feed into the prison industry. Fuck outta here",
">\n\nThere are programs to help them, but you have to participate in the program. Lots of these people do not want that kind of help. They don't want a job. They prefer panhandling and being drug addicts. \nMaking it harder to live like that reroutes them to the help programs.",
">\n\nNo it doesn’t. Making life harder to live means people do whatever it takes to make it easier. Including especially the drugs you folks love to pretend is a problem for homeless people but not for you.",
">\n\nSo much for \"the land of the free\""
] |
>
Just like Jesus would want right? | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised.",
">\n\nWhy didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty!",
">\n\nJust like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s",
">\n\nWhen you talk to random people on reddit about homelessness you realize that unfortunately when many people say the \"homelessness problem\", they don't mean that there are homeless people, they mean that they have to see homeless people.\nMany people seem perfectly happy with out of sight out of mind when it comes to the homeless.",
">\n\nTypical conversation with a liberal (I'm a socdem) about homelessness:\nLiberal: \"the homelessness epidemic is inhumane. We must help these people.\"\nMe: \"yes, I agree with you 100%. Let's start a fundraiser to convert that old building into a homeless shelter or low income housing, so that-\"\nLiberal: \"ewwwww no, I don't want homeless people here. The property value of my family's house will go down and I don't wanna see a bunch of tweakers at night.\"\nMe: \".......... alright, I'll just do it myself. Sorry for bothering you.\"",
">\n\nHonest question, do you own a home yourself?",
">\n\nI'll answer your question if you tell me why you're asking. Seems like bait/a trap to me.",
">\n\nDude’s gonna pull the “WhY aReN’t YoU hOuSiNg ThEm??!!111",
">\n\nI own a home (well the bank does, but y'know), and I'd fully endorse using a nearby house as a shelter for people experiencing homelessness. Would it potentially lower property values? Maybe, but I don't really care. Would it potentially mean more petty crime in the area? Also maybe yes, but there are things that could be done to counter that, and the whole point is lifting people out of poverty so that crime isn't something they feel they need to resort to. So yeah, bring on the residential shelters!",
">\n\n\"We must solve homelessness by criminalizing it.\"\n\"We must stop abortion by outlawing it.\"\n\"You can't stop gun violence by outlawing guns!\"",
">\n\nDisgusting, inhumane and incredibly immoral. How is walking the earth and poverty a crime?",
">\n\n\nHow is walking the earth and poverty a crime?\n\nWhat's even funnier is that these people claim to be Christians, followers of a man who famously had \"no place to lay his head\" and traveled around mooching off of his followers.",
">\n\nMatthews 25:41-45",
">\n\nThe pillars of democracy are: robust public education, independent journalism, human rights, equality and justice. Promote the pillars of democracy in your house and amongst your friends. Talk about them, talk about how to re-establish them, how to amplify them. Get involved in every democratic process in your community too. Defend democracy good people - it is under direct attack. Rise up and defend democracy and the United States itself from this fascist Republican attack.",
">\n\nHow is the law not fair here? It is equally illegal for both the rich and poor to sleep under a bridge!\n/s",
">\n\nSomething tells me rich people still would never be prosecuted or fined for this lol",
">\n\nFor a party that prides itself on “Christian values” Republicans get off on some really evil shit.",
">\n\nDems involuntarily committing people isnt much better. It's not just a Blue v Red thing. It's a Rich v Poor thing.",
">\n\nOk but that's Eric Adams, he's a cop and a conservative, he's abnormal for Democrats.",
">\n\nGavin Newsome isnt (supposedly) conservative. Neither is Portland, where forced hospitalization of the homeless is also happening.\nAnd really, if he was abnormal, wed see the really blue places creating homes for the homeless. Please god tell me you have proof that I’m wrong though. I would happily be wrong about this.",
">\n\nOk I'll grant you that, but I would hope that these jurisdictions and leaders would not follow that particularly reprehensible lead.",
">\n\nWhy does “We need to get the homeless off the streets.” always sound so progressive in Europe and sinister in the US?",
">\n\nIn the US it often means just put them in prison instead of shoving them in cramped shelters",
">\n\nCapitalism can never solve homelessness, bc they dont make enough money from it. Hence why CA, NY, and WA continue to struggle with it, while places like Missouri make it even worse. There are no pro-homeless states in the US.",
">\n\nThey make a shitload of money off of it lol. Homeless shelters get paid for every bed they have filled. I used to work at a shelter and they’d let dudes stay who were clearly breaking rules or a danger to others because if they have unfilled beds they don’t receive as much money from the government. The entire game is keeping the shelter full, taking the money they give per person (let’s say the budget calls for 200 bucks of resources per resident) they do anything and everything to supply the lowest acceptable level of resources allowed, at as far under that 200 dollar limit as they can. Then they keep the excess money.",
">\n\nShelters aren’t solving homelessness. But good point on how most of our systems designed to help people are still just money making systems at the end of the day.",
">\n\nSpoiler alert, you can’t solve homelessness unless you can somehow force people to not be mentally ill or drug addicted. At the end of the day it has to start with the homeless person. No amount of forcing someone to do x y or z will solve this",
">\n\nCrimes committed against the homeless are already largely ignored. It’s only a matter of time before being homeless becomes grounds for sanctioned murder, like it’s fucking pest control.",
">\n\nLMAO I was homeless for a while and it already is.\nLots of unhoused folks particularly women go missing and never show back up.",
">\n\nThey'll put them in warehouses run by Geo Corp, then bill you, the taxpayer $750 per day for that \"service\". All of this nonsense, so that America can avoid looking at the reasons why there are so many homeless, and how to get someone back on their feet once homeless. It's dystopian.",
">\n\nHave to keep taxpayer dollars going to for-profit prisons somehow",
">\n\nThe choice is to either stay in a homeless shelter full of addicts and mentally ill people, or...? \nIt's so odd to me that we live in a \"free country\" but you can't even live in the woods because the woods is owned by somebody else.",
">\n\nImagine if we tried actually helping people for once instead of just punishing them.",
">\n\nOh you’re broke! Let’s just help you out with a little prison time too. It’s what Jesus would do.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nCities across the country have seen a backlash to attempts by officials to remove homeless encampments or limit where unhoused people can camp.\nProtesters marched through the downtown Chicago area in November to protest against the city's announcement that donated winterized tents for homeless people had to be removed for street cleaning, reported the Chicago Tribune.\nY Robelo, founder of the non-profit Feeding People Through Plants, provided the tents and criticized the city's treatment of homeless people.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: people^#1 city^#2 law^#3 homeless^#4 new^#5",
">\n\n‘Anti-homeless’ laws sound as stupid as ‘anti-sneezing’ laws. \nJust because you rule out something it doesn’t mean it ceases to exist, when the ‘offenders’ have little power over it.",
">\n\nIt’s almost like there’s money to be made in the privatisation of prisons or something.",
">\n\nJust making it illegal to be poor now so they can fill prisons and get slave labor from the inmates, on top of taking away their rights in general and making a profit from it.",
">\n\nWhen their prison budgets blow up at least they will have solved the homeless problem, by actually housing in a WAY more expensive way.\nLocking people is not a solution, it is cruel but that’s republicans.",
">\n\nIf there wasn't so much financial inequality, affordable housing, decent wages and healthcare for all, there wouldn't be anti-homeless laws. Jfc this is not hard but due to corruption and a broken system, here we are.",
">\n\nSo damned wrong!!!!",
">\n\nThis is a cash grab to fill private prisons.",
">\n\nIm not sure about other areas laws but up here in the PNW the new laws are going after large camp sites, and areas of increased crime/violence. \nMore notably the only ones in effect that make it illegal to sleep out in public is if there is a support center within walking distance and it has enough capacity to house the person. \nWe get a lot of people echoing the sentiment that its an attack on the homeless and what not but when you have someone setup a tent behind your backyard or see your family threatened youll change your tune too.",
">\n\nIf you set up actual housing for them then itd stop being seen as an attack.",
">\n\nAre you volunteering your backyard for their housing? \nBecause no one else is.",
">\n\nI mean, some people in Eugene do exactly that. But like, if you put a mentally unstable tweaker in a house, they'll just magically become a valuable part of society? Mentally ill cannot care for themselves. Putting homeless in houses isn't going to solve shit, they'll still be out there doing their thing. Being in a house isn't going to stop people from shitting on the sidewalk in front of your store if you piss them off.",
">\n\nYes thank you!\nThat is exactly why our area is focusing more on supporting services AND affordable housing. \nIm so tired of people claiming that the only solution to just build tiny villages or just let them camp out then everything will work itself out.",
">\n\nPeople don’t act as if it’s the only solution, it’s the required first step. Having housing makes all the rest of the support services infinitely easier.",
">\n\nWe should pass laws saying it’s illegal to have less than a million dollars.\nThat way, I would magically have a million dollars.",
">\n\nIsn't Missouri where Brett Favre and the governor stole millions of dollars of welfare funds to build a volleyball stadium for Favre's daughter's college in his name? Wonder why they're perpetually last in most important metrics... lol",
">\n\nMississippi",
">\n\nIt's really simple: anything that is required to maintain living should be guaranteed by society for all. Food, water, shelter, and healthcare--at a minimum. Beyond that, electricity, internet access, and transportation should also be included as guaranteed services. I would also include things like education and work and/or UBI.\nOur government has trillions and yet we somehow cannot guarantee a basic standard of living for every human being who lives here. It's shameful.",
">\n\nWhen you have homeless shitting and throwing used needles in your yard, you start to understand the anger behind these laws.\nThis isn't the right way to go about it, but people want something done.",
">\n\nIt seems most people here who are criticizing these policies don't have to actually live near homeless people. Anyone who lives in a downtown area or nearby knows how bad it is. We all have to smell and see the shit, piss and trash left by homeless people every day on our streets and even our entrances. People are also getting stabbed and beaten by homeless people. Cities are unsafe and filthy partly because of them. It's really easy to criticize these policies from your comfortable suburban home far away from all the homeless people. If you had to live near them, you would be the first to scream at city hall to do something about it.",
">\n\nYeah no, they could spend the effort trying to actually rehouse these people and get them back in the work force instead of signing laws fining them money they obviously don't have to feed into the prison industry. Fuck outta here",
">\n\nThere are programs to help them, but you have to participate in the program. Lots of these people do not want that kind of help. They don't want a job. They prefer panhandling and being drug addicts. \nMaking it harder to live like that reroutes them to the help programs.",
">\n\nNo it doesn’t. Making life harder to live means people do whatever it takes to make it easier. Including especially the drugs you folks love to pretend is a problem for homeless people but not for you.",
">\n\nSo much for \"the land of the free\"",
">\n\nThis is sick. Fuck this place man."
] |
>
Homelessness has crushed downtown Portland. The main tourist sector is quite literally filled with human shit, tents and violent crime. The police department was defunded and remade and the result is antipathy.
Edit: Here is the link. Funds were removed from the budget and it is now branded as the Portland Police Bureau. | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised.",
">\n\nWhy didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty!",
">\n\nJust like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s",
">\n\nWhen you talk to random people on reddit about homelessness you realize that unfortunately when many people say the \"homelessness problem\", they don't mean that there are homeless people, they mean that they have to see homeless people.\nMany people seem perfectly happy with out of sight out of mind when it comes to the homeless.",
">\n\nTypical conversation with a liberal (I'm a socdem) about homelessness:\nLiberal: \"the homelessness epidemic is inhumane. We must help these people.\"\nMe: \"yes, I agree with you 100%. Let's start a fundraiser to convert that old building into a homeless shelter or low income housing, so that-\"\nLiberal: \"ewwwww no, I don't want homeless people here. The property value of my family's house will go down and I don't wanna see a bunch of tweakers at night.\"\nMe: \".......... alright, I'll just do it myself. Sorry for bothering you.\"",
">\n\nHonest question, do you own a home yourself?",
">\n\nI'll answer your question if you tell me why you're asking. Seems like bait/a trap to me.",
">\n\nDude’s gonna pull the “WhY aReN’t YoU hOuSiNg ThEm??!!111",
">\n\nI own a home (well the bank does, but y'know), and I'd fully endorse using a nearby house as a shelter for people experiencing homelessness. Would it potentially lower property values? Maybe, but I don't really care. Would it potentially mean more petty crime in the area? Also maybe yes, but there are things that could be done to counter that, and the whole point is lifting people out of poverty so that crime isn't something they feel they need to resort to. So yeah, bring on the residential shelters!",
">\n\n\"We must solve homelessness by criminalizing it.\"\n\"We must stop abortion by outlawing it.\"\n\"You can't stop gun violence by outlawing guns!\"",
">\n\nDisgusting, inhumane and incredibly immoral. How is walking the earth and poverty a crime?",
">\n\n\nHow is walking the earth and poverty a crime?\n\nWhat's even funnier is that these people claim to be Christians, followers of a man who famously had \"no place to lay his head\" and traveled around mooching off of his followers.",
">\n\nMatthews 25:41-45",
">\n\nThe pillars of democracy are: robust public education, independent journalism, human rights, equality and justice. Promote the pillars of democracy in your house and amongst your friends. Talk about them, talk about how to re-establish them, how to amplify them. Get involved in every democratic process in your community too. Defend democracy good people - it is under direct attack. Rise up and defend democracy and the United States itself from this fascist Republican attack.",
">\n\nHow is the law not fair here? It is equally illegal for both the rich and poor to sleep under a bridge!\n/s",
">\n\nSomething tells me rich people still would never be prosecuted or fined for this lol",
">\n\nFor a party that prides itself on “Christian values” Republicans get off on some really evil shit.",
">\n\nDems involuntarily committing people isnt much better. It's not just a Blue v Red thing. It's a Rich v Poor thing.",
">\n\nOk but that's Eric Adams, he's a cop and a conservative, he's abnormal for Democrats.",
">\n\nGavin Newsome isnt (supposedly) conservative. Neither is Portland, where forced hospitalization of the homeless is also happening.\nAnd really, if he was abnormal, wed see the really blue places creating homes for the homeless. Please god tell me you have proof that I’m wrong though. I would happily be wrong about this.",
">\n\nOk I'll grant you that, but I would hope that these jurisdictions and leaders would not follow that particularly reprehensible lead.",
">\n\nWhy does “We need to get the homeless off the streets.” always sound so progressive in Europe and sinister in the US?",
">\n\nIn the US it often means just put them in prison instead of shoving them in cramped shelters",
">\n\nCapitalism can never solve homelessness, bc they dont make enough money from it. Hence why CA, NY, and WA continue to struggle with it, while places like Missouri make it even worse. There are no pro-homeless states in the US.",
">\n\nThey make a shitload of money off of it lol. Homeless shelters get paid for every bed they have filled. I used to work at a shelter and they’d let dudes stay who were clearly breaking rules or a danger to others because if they have unfilled beds they don’t receive as much money from the government. The entire game is keeping the shelter full, taking the money they give per person (let’s say the budget calls for 200 bucks of resources per resident) they do anything and everything to supply the lowest acceptable level of resources allowed, at as far under that 200 dollar limit as they can. Then they keep the excess money.",
">\n\nShelters aren’t solving homelessness. But good point on how most of our systems designed to help people are still just money making systems at the end of the day.",
">\n\nSpoiler alert, you can’t solve homelessness unless you can somehow force people to not be mentally ill or drug addicted. At the end of the day it has to start with the homeless person. No amount of forcing someone to do x y or z will solve this",
">\n\nCrimes committed against the homeless are already largely ignored. It’s only a matter of time before being homeless becomes grounds for sanctioned murder, like it’s fucking pest control.",
">\n\nLMAO I was homeless for a while and it already is.\nLots of unhoused folks particularly women go missing and never show back up.",
">\n\nThey'll put them in warehouses run by Geo Corp, then bill you, the taxpayer $750 per day for that \"service\". All of this nonsense, so that America can avoid looking at the reasons why there are so many homeless, and how to get someone back on their feet once homeless. It's dystopian.",
">\n\nHave to keep taxpayer dollars going to for-profit prisons somehow",
">\n\nThe choice is to either stay in a homeless shelter full of addicts and mentally ill people, or...? \nIt's so odd to me that we live in a \"free country\" but you can't even live in the woods because the woods is owned by somebody else.",
">\n\nImagine if we tried actually helping people for once instead of just punishing them.",
">\n\nOh you’re broke! Let’s just help you out with a little prison time too. It’s what Jesus would do.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nCities across the country have seen a backlash to attempts by officials to remove homeless encampments or limit where unhoused people can camp.\nProtesters marched through the downtown Chicago area in November to protest against the city's announcement that donated winterized tents for homeless people had to be removed for street cleaning, reported the Chicago Tribune.\nY Robelo, founder of the non-profit Feeding People Through Plants, provided the tents and criticized the city's treatment of homeless people.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: people^#1 city^#2 law^#3 homeless^#4 new^#5",
">\n\n‘Anti-homeless’ laws sound as stupid as ‘anti-sneezing’ laws. \nJust because you rule out something it doesn’t mean it ceases to exist, when the ‘offenders’ have little power over it.",
">\n\nIt’s almost like there’s money to be made in the privatisation of prisons or something.",
">\n\nJust making it illegal to be poor now so they can fill prisons and get slave labor from the inmates, on top of taking away their rights in general and making a profit from it.",
">\n\nWhen their prison budgets blow up at least they will have solved the homeless problem, by actually housing in a WAY more expensive way.\nLocking people is not a solution, it is cruel but that’s republicans.",
">\n\nIf there wasn't so much financial inequality, affordable housing, decent wages and healthcare for all, there wouldn't be anti-homeless laws. Jfc this is not hard but due to corruption and a broken system, here we are.",
">\n\nSo damned wrong!!!!",
">\n\nThis is a cash grab to fill private prisons.",
">\n\nIm not sure about other areas laws but up here in the PNW the new laws are going after large camp sites, and areas of increased crime/violence. \nMore notably the only ones in effect that make it illegal to sleep out in public is if there is a support center within walking distance and it has enough capacity to house the person. \nWe get a lot of people echoing the sentiment that its an attack on the homeless and what not but when you have someone setup a tent behind your backyard or see your family threatened youll change your tune too.",
">\n\nIf you set up actual housing for them then itd stop being seen as an attack.",
">\n\nAre you volunteering your backyard for their housing? \nBecause no one else is.",
">\n\nI mean, some people in Eugene do exactly that. But like, if you put a mentally unstable tweaker in a house, they'll just magically become a valuable part of society? Mentally ill cannot care for themselves. Putting homeless in houses isn't going to solve shit, they'll still be out there doing their thing. Being in a house isn't going to stop people from shitting on the sidewalk in front of your store if you piss them off.",
">\n\nYes thank you!\nThat is exactly why our area is focusing more on supporting services AND affordable housing. \nIm so tired of people claiming that the only solution to just build tiny villages or just let them camp out then everything will work itself out.",
">\n\nPeople don’t act as if it’s the only solution, it’s the required first step. Having housing makes all the rest of the support services infinitely easier.",
">\n\nWe should pass laws saying it’s illegal to have less than a million dollars.\nThat way, I would magically have a million dollars.",
">\n\nIsn't Missouri where Brett Favre and the governor stole millions of dollars of welfare funds to build a volleyball stadium for Favre's daughter's college in his name? Wonder why they're perpetually last in most important metrics... lol",
">\n\nMississippi",
">\n\nIt's really simple: anything that is required to maintain living should be guaranteed by society for all. Food, water, shelter, and healthcare--at a minimum. Beyond that, electricity, internet access, and transportation should also be included as guaranteed services. I would also include things like education and work and/or UBI.\nOur government has trillions and yet we somehow cannot guarantee a basic standard of living for every human being who lives here. It's shameful.",
">\n\nWhen you have homeless shitting and throwing used needles in your yard, you start to understand the anger behind these laws.\nThis isn't the right way to go about it, but people want something done.",
">\n\nIt seems most people here who are criticizing these policies don't have to actually live near homeless people. Anyone who lives in a downtown area or nearby knows how bad it is. We all have to smell and see the shit, piss and trash left by homeless people every day on our streets and even our entrances. People are also getting stabbed and beaten by homeless people. Cities are unsafe and filthy partly because of them. It's really easy to criticize these policies from your comfortable suburban home far away from all the homeless people. If you had to live near them, you would be the first to scream at city hall to do something about it.",
">\n\nYeah no, they could spend the effort trying to actually rehouse these people and get them back in the work force instead of signing laws fining them money they obviously don't have to feed into the prison industry. Fuck outta here",
">\n\nThere are programs to help them, but you have to participate in the program. Lots of these people do not want that kind of help. They don't want a job. They prefer panhandling and being drug addicts. \nMaking it harder to live like that reroutes them to the help programs.",
">\n\nNo it doesn’t. Making life harder to live means people do whatever it takes to make it easier. Including especially the drugs you folks love to pretend is a problem for homeless people but not for you.",
">\n\nSo much for \"the land of the free\"",
">\n\nThis is sick. Fuck this place man.",
">\n\nJust like Jesus would want right?"
] |
>
Can you please explain how charging these people with a $750 fine would put an end to this? Would they just all be moved to prison since they can't pay? | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised.",
">\n\nWhy didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty!",
">\n\nJust like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s",
">\n\nWhen you talk to random people on reddit about homelessness you realize that unfortunately when many people say the \"homelessness problem\", they don't mean that there are homeless people, they mean that they have to see homeless people.\nMany people seem perfectly happy with out of sight out of mind when it comes to the homeless.",
">\n\nTypical conversation with a liberal (I'm a socdem) about homelessness:\nLiberal: \"the homelessness epidemic is inhumane. We must help these people.\"\nMe: \"yes, I agree with you 100%. Let's start a fundraiser to convert that old building into a homeless shelter or low income housing, so that-\"\nLiberal: \"ewwwww no, I don't want homeless people here. The property value of my family's house will go down and I don't wanna see a bunch of tweakers at night.\"\nMe: \".......... alright, I'll just do it myself. Sorry for bothering you.\"",
">\n\nHonest question, do you own a home yourself?",
">\n\nI'll answer your question if you tell me why you're asking. Seems like bait/a trap to me.",
">\n\nDude’s gonna pull the “WhY aReN’t YoU hOuSiNg ThEm??!!111",
">\n\nI own a home (well the bank does, but y'know), and I'd fully endorse using a nearby house as a shelter for people experiencing homelessness. Would it potentially lower property values? Maybe, but I don't really care. Would it potentially mean more petty crime in the area? Also maybe yes, but there are things that could be done to counter that, and the whole point is lifting people out of poverty so that crime isn't something they feel they need to resort to. So yeah, bring on the residential shelters!",
">\n\n\"We must solve homelessness by criminalizing it.\"\n\"We must stop abortion by outlawing it.\"\n\"You can't stop gun violence by outlawing guns!\"",
">\n\nDisgusting, inhumane and incredibly immoral. How is walking the earth and poverty a crime?",
">\n\n\nHow is walking the earth and poverty a crime?\n\nWhat's even funnier is that these people claim to be Christians, followers of a man who famously had \"no place to lay his head\" and traveled around mooching off of his followers.",
">\n\nMatthews 25:41-45",
">\n\nThe pillars of democracy are: robust public education, independent journalism, human rights, equality and justice. Promote the pillars of democracy in your house and amongst your friends. Talk about them, talk about how to re-establish them, how to amplify them. Get involved in every democratic process in your community too. Defend democracy good people - it is under direct attack. Rise up and defend democracy and the United States itself from this fascist Republican attack.",
">\n\nHow is the law not fair here? It is equally illegal for both the rich and poor to sleep under a bridge!\n/s",
">\n\nSomething tells me rich people still would never be prosecuted or fined for this lol",
">\n\nFor a party that prides itself on “Christian values” Republicans get off on some really evil shit.",
">\n\nDems involuntarily committing people isnt much better. It's not just a Blue v Red thing. It's a Rich v Poor thing.",
">\n\nOk but that's Eric Adams, he's a cop and a conservative, he's abnormal for Democrats.",
">\n\nGavin Newsome isnt (supposedly) conservative. Neither is Portland, where forced hospitalization of the homeless is also happening.\nAnd really, if he was abnormal, wed see the really blue places creating homes for the homeless. Please god tell me you have proof that I’m wrong though. I would happily be wrong about this.",
">\n\nOk I'll grant you that, but I would hope that these jurisdictions and leaders would not follow that particularly reprehensible lead.",
">\n\nWhy does “We need to get the homeless off the streets.” always sound so progressive in Europe and sinister in the US?",
">\n\nIn the US it often means just put them in prison instead of shoving them in cramped shelters",
">\n\nCapitalism can never solve homelessness, bc they dont make enough money from it. Hence why CA, NY, and WA continue to struggle with it, while places like Missouri make it even worse. There are no pro-homeless states in the US.",
">\n\nThey make a shitload of money off of it lol. Homeless shelters get paid for every bed they have filled. I used to work at a shelter and they’d let dudes stay who were clearly breaking rules or a danger to others because if they have unfilled beds they don’t receive as much money from the government. The entire game is keeping the shelter full, taking the money they give per person (let’s say the budget calls for 200 bucks of resources per resident) they do anything and everything to supply the lowest acceptable level of resources allowed, at as far under that 200 dollar limit as they can. Then they keep the excess money.",
">\n\nShelters aren’t solving homelessness. But good point on how most of our systems designed to help people are still just money making systems at the end of the day.",
">\n\nSpoiler alert, you can’t solve homelessness unless you can somehow force people to not be mentally ill or drug addicted. At the end of the day it has to start with the homeless person. No amount of forcing someone to do x y or z will solve this",
">\n\nCrimes committed against the homeless are already largely ignored. It’s only a matter of time before being homeless becomes grounds for sanctioned murder, like it’s fucking pest control.",
">\n\nLMAO I was homeless for a while and it already is.\nLots of unhoused folks particularly women go missing and never show back up.",
">\n\nThey'll put them in warehouses run by Geo Corp, then bill you, the taxpayer $750 per day for that \"service\". All of this nonsense, so that America can avoid looking at the reasons why there are so many homeless, and how to get someone back on their feet once homeless. It's dystopian.",
">\n\nHave to keep taxpayer dollars going to for-profit prisons somehow",
">\n\nThe choice is to either stay in a homeless shelter full of addicts and mentally ill people, or...? \nIt's so odd to me that we live in a \"free country\" but you can't even live in the woods because the woods is owned by somebody else.",
">\n\nImagine if we tried actually helping people for once instead of just punishing them.",
">\n\nOh you’re broke! Let’s just help you out with a little prison time too. It’s what Jesus would do.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nCities across the country have seen a backlash to attempts by officials to remove homeless encampments or limit where unhoused people can camp.\nProtesters marched through the downtown Chicago area in November to protest against the city's announcement that donated winterized tents for homeless people had to be removed for street cleaning, reported the Chicago Tribune.\nY Robelo, founder of the non-profit Feeding People Through Plants, provided the tents and criticized the city's treatment of homeless people.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: people^#1 city^#2 law^#3 homeless^#4 new^#5",
">\n\n‘Anti-homeless’ laws sound as stupid as ‘anti-sneezing’ laws. \nJust because you rule out something it doesn’t mean it ceases to exist, when the ‘offenders’ have little power over it.",
">\n\nIt’s almost like there’s money to be made in the privatisation of prisons or something.",
">\n\nJust making it illegal to be poor now so they can fill prisons and get slave labor from the inmates, on top of taking away their rights in general and making a profit from it.",
">\n\nWhen their prison budgets blow up at least they will have solved the homeless problem, by actually housing in a WAY more expensive way.\nLocking people is not a solution, it is cruel but that’s republicans.",
">\n\nIf there wasn't so much financial inequality, affordable housing, decent wages and healthcare for all, there wouldn't be anti-homeless laws. Jfc this is not hard but due to corruption and a broken system, here we are.",
">\n\nSo damned wrong!!!!",
">\n\nThis is a cash grab to fill private prisons.",
">\n\nIm not sure about other areas laws but up here in the PNW the new laws are going after large camp sites, and areas of increased crime/violence. \nMore notably the only ones in effect that make it illegal to sleep out in public is if there is a support center within walking distance and it has enough capacity to house the person. \nWe get a lot of people echoing the sentiment that its an attack on the homeless and what not but when you have someone setup a tent behind your backyard or see your family threatened youll change your tune too.",
">\n\nIf you set up actual housing for them then itd stop being seen as an attack.",
">\n\nAre you volunteering your backyard for their housing? \nBecause no one else is.",
">\n\nI mean, some people in Eugene do exactly that. But like, if you put a mentally unstable tweaker in a house, they'll just magically become a valuable part of society? Mentally ill cannot care for themselves. Putting homeless in houses isn't going to solve shit, they'll still be out there doing their thing. Being in a house isn't going to stop people from shitting on the sidewalk in front of your store if you piss them off.",
">\n\nYes thank you!\nThat is exactly why our area is focusing more on supporting services AND affordable housing. \nIm so tired of people claiming that the only solution to just build tiny villages or just let them camp out then everything will work itself out.",
">\n\nPeople don’t act as if it’s the only solution, it’s the required first step. Having housing makes all the rest of the support services infinitely easier.",
">\n\nWe should pass laws saying it’s illegal to have less than a million dollars.\nThat way, I would magically have a million dollars.",
">\n\nIsn't Missouri where Brett Favre and the governor stole millions of dollars of welfare funds to build a volleyball stadium for Favre's daughter's college in his name? Wonder why they're perpetually last in most important metrics... lol",
">\n\nMississippi",
">\n\nIt's really simple: anything that is required to maintain living should be guaranteed by society for all. Food, water, shelter, and healthcare--at a minimum. Beyond that, electricity, internet access, and transportation should also be included as guaranteed services. I would also include things like education and work and/or UBI.\nOur government has trillions and yet we somehow cannot guarantee a basic standard of living for every human being who lives here. It's shameful.",
">\n\nWhen you have homeless shitting and throwing used needles in your yard, you start to understand the anger behind these laws.\nThis isn't the right way to go about it, but people want something done.",
">\n\nIt seems most people here who are criticizing these policies don't have to actually live near homeless people. Anyone who lives in a downtown area or nearby knows how bad it is. We all have to smell and see the shit, piss and trash left by homeless people every day on our streets and even our entrances. People are also getting stabbed and beaten by homeless people. Cities are unsafe and filthy partly because of them. It's really easy to criticize these policies from your comfortable suburban home far away from all the homeless people. If you had to live near them, you would be the first to scream at city hall to do something about it.",
">\n\nYeah no, they could spend the effort trying to actually rehouse these people and get them back in the work force instead of signing laws fining them money they obviously don't have to feed into the prison industry. Fuck outta here",
">\n\nThere are programs to help them, but you have to participate in the program. Lots of these people do not want that kind of help. They don't want a job. They prefer panhandling and being drug addicts. \nMaking it harder to live like that reroutes them to the help programs.",
">\n\nNo it doesn’t. Making life harder to live means people do whatever it takes to make it easier. Including especially the drugs you folks love to pretend is a problem for homeless people but not for you.",
">\n\nSo much for \"the land of the free\"",
">\n\nThis is sick. Fuck this place man.",
">\n\nJust like Jesus would want right?",
">\n\nHomelessness has crushed downtown Portland. The main tourist sector is quite literally filled with human shit, tents and violent crime. The police department was defunded and remade and the result is antipathy.\nEdit: Here is the link. Funds were removed from the budget and it is now branded as the Portland Police Bureau."
] |
>
I never said it wasnt a problem. I was in Portland last Spring and I see that it's a problem there. I'm asking how a fine would alleviate the solution or at least asking for an alternative. | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised.",
">\n\nWhy didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty!",
">\n\nJust like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s",
">\n\nWhen you talk to random people on reddit about homelessness you realize that unfortunately when many people say the \"homelessness problem\", they don't mean that there are homeless people, they mean that they have to see homeless people.\nMany people seem perfectly happy with out of sight out of mind when it comes to the homeless.",
">\n\nTypical conversation with a liberal (I'm a socdem) about homelessness:\nLiberal: \"the homelessness epidemic is inhumane. We must help these people.\"\nMe: \"yes, I agree with you 100%. Let's start a fundraiser to convert that old building into a homeless shelter or low income housing, so that-\"\nLiberal: \"ewwwww no, I don't want homeless people here. The property value of my family's house will go down and I don't wanna see a bunch of tweakers at night.\"\nMe: \".......... alright, I'll just do it myself. Sorry for bothering you.\"",
">\n\nHonest question, do you own a home yourself?",
">\n\nI'll answer your question if you tell me why you're asking. Seems like bait/a trap to me.",
">\n\nDude’s gonna pull the “WhY aReN’t YoU hOuSiNg ThEm??!!111",
">\n\nI own a home (well the bank does, but y'know), and I'd fully endorse using a nearby house as a shelter for people experiencing homelessness. Would it potentially lower property values? Maybe, but I don't really care. Would it potentially mean more petty crime in the area? Also maybe yes, but there are things that could be done to counter that, and the whole point is lifting people out of poverty so that crime isn't something they feel they need to resort to. So yeah, bring on the residential shelters!",
">\n\n\"We must solve homelessness by criminalizing it.\"\n\"We must stop abortion by outlawing it.\"\n\"You can't stop gun violence by outlawing guns!\"",
">\n\nDisgusting, inhumane and incredibly immoral. How is walking the earth and poverty a crime?",
">\n\n\nHow is walking the earth and poverty a crime?\n\nWhat's even funnier is that these people claim to be Christians, followers of a man who famously had \"no place to lay his head\" and traveled around mooching off of his followers.",
">\n\nMatthews 25:41-45",
">\n\nThe pillars of democracy are: robust public education, independent journalism, human rights, equality and justice. Promote the pillars of democracy in your house and amongst your friends. Talk about them, talk about how to re-establish them, how to amplify them. Get involved in every democratic process in your community too. Defend democracy good people - it is under direct attack. Rise up and defend democracy and the United States itself from this fascist Republican attack.",
">\n\nHow is the law not fair here? It is equally illegal for both the rich and poor to sleep under a bridge!\n/s",
">\n\nSomething tells me rich people still would never be prosecuted or fined for this lol",
">\n\nFor a party that prides itself on “Christian values” Republicans get off on some really evil shit.",
">\n\nDems involuntarily committing people isnt much better. It's not just a Blue v Red thing. It's a Rich v Poor thing.",
">\n\nOk but that's Eric Adams, he's a cop and a conservative, he's abnormal for Democrats.",
">\n\nGavin Newsome isnt (supposedly) conservative. Neither is Portland, where forced hospitalization of the homeless is also happening.\nAnd really, if he was abnormal, wed see the really blue places creating homes for the homeless. Please god tell me you have proof that I’m wrong though. I would happily be wrong about this.",
">\n\nOk I'll grant you that, but I would hope that these jurisdictions and leaders would not follow that particularly reprehensible lead.",
">\n\nWhy does “We need to get the homeless off the streets.” always sound so progressive in Europe and sinister in the US?",
">\n\nIn the US it often means just put them in prison instead of shoving them in cramped shelters",
">\n\nCapitalism can never solve homelessness, bc they dont make enough money from it. Hence why CA, NY, and WA continue to struggle with it, while places like Missouri make it even worse. There are no pro-homeless states in the US.",
">\n\nThey make a shitload of money off of it lol. Homeless shelters get paid for every bed they have filled. I used to work at a shelter and they’d let dudes stay who were clearly breaking rules or a danger to others because if they have unfilled beds they don’t receive as much money from the government. The entire game is keeping the shelter full, taking the money they give per person (let’s say the budget calls for 200 bucks of resources per resident) they do anything and everything to supply the lowest acceptable level of resources allowed, at as far under that 200 dollar limit as they can. Then they keep the excess money.",
">\n\nShelters aren’t solving homelessness. But good point on how most of our systems designed to help people are still just money making systems at the end of the day.",
">\n\nSpoiler alert, you can’t solve homelessness unless you can somehow force people to not be mentally ill or drug addicted. At the end of the day it has to start with the homeless person. No amount of forcing someone to do x y or z will solve this",
">\n\nCrimes committed against the homeless are already largely ignored. It’s only a matter of time before being homeless becomes grounds for sanctioned murder, like it’s fucking pest control.",
">\n\nLMAO I was homeless for a while and it already is.\nLots of unhoused folks particularly women go missing and never show back up.",
">\n\nThey'll put them in warehouses run by Geo Corp, then bill you, the taxpayer $750 per day for that \"service\". All of this nonsense, so that America can avoid looking at the reasons why there are so many homeless, and how to get someone back on their feet once homeless. It's dystopian.",
">\n\nHave to keep taxpayer dollars going to for-profit prisons somehow",
">\n\nThe choice is to either stay in a homeless shelter full of addicts and mentally ill people, or...? \nIt's so odd to me that we live in a \"free country\" but you can't even live in the woods because the woods is owned by somebody else.",
">\n\nImagine if we tried actually helping people for once instead of just punishing them.",
">\n\nOh you’re broke! Let’s just help you out with a little prison time too. It’s what Jesus would do.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nCities across the country have seen a backlash to attempts by officials to remove homeless encampments or limit where unhoused people can camp.\nProtesters marched through the downtown Chicago area in November to protest against the city's announcement that donated winterized tents for homeless people had to be removed for street cleaning, reported the Chicago Tribune.\nY Robelo, founder of the non-profit Feeding People Through Plants, provided the tents and criticized the city's treatment of homeless people.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: people^#1 city^#2 law^#3 homeless^#4 new^#5",
">\n\n‘Anti-homeless’ laws sound as stupid as ‘anti-sneezing’ laws. \nJust because you rule out something it doesn’t mean it ceases to exist, when the ‘offenders’ have little power over it.",
">\n\nIt’s almost like there’s money to be made in the privatisation of prisons or something.",
">\n\nJust making it illegal to be poor now so they can fill prisons and get slave labor from the inmates, on top of taking away their rights in general and making a profit from it.",
">\n\nWhen their prison budgets blow up at least they will have solved the homeless problem, by actually housing in a WAY more expensive way.\nLocking people is not a solution, it is cruel but that’s republicans.",
">\n\nIf there wasn't so much financial inequality, affordable housing, decent wages and healthcare for all, there wouldn't be anti-homeless laws. Jfc this is not hard but due to corruption and a broken system, here we are.",
">\n\nSo damned wrong!!!!",
">\n\nThis is a cash grab to fill private prisons.",
">\n\nIm not sure about other areas laws but up here in the PNW the new laws are going after large camp sites, and areas of increased crime/violence. \nMore notably the only ones in effect that make it illegal to sleep out in public is if there is a support center within walking distance and it has enough capacity to house the person. \nWe get a lot of people echoing the sentiment that its an attack on the homeless and what not but when you have someone setup a tent behind your backyard or see your family threatened youll change your tune too.",
">\n\nIf you set up actual housing for them then itd stop being seen as an attack.",
">\n\nAre you volunteering your backyard for their housing? \nBecause no one else is.",
">\n\nI mean, some people in Eugene do exactly that. But like, if you put a mentally unstable tweaker in a house, they'll just magically become a valuable part of society? Mentally ill cannot care for themselves. Putting homeless in houses isn't going to solve shit, they'll still be out there doing their thing. Being in a house isn't going to stop people from shitting on the sidewalk in front of your store if you piss them off.",
">\n\nYes thank you!\nThat is exactly why our area is focusing more on supporting services AND affordable housing. \nIm so tired of people claiming that the only solution to just build tiny villages or just let them camp out then everything will work itself out.",
">\n\nPeople don’t act as if it’s the only solution, it’s the required first step. Having housing makes all the rest of the support services infinitely easier.",
">\n\nWe should pass laws saying it’s illegal to have less than a million dollars.\nThat way, I would magically have a million dollars.",
">\n\nIsn't Missouri where Brett Favre and the governor stole millions of dollars of welfare funds to build a volleyball stadium for Favre's daughter's college in his name? Wonder why they're perpetually last in most important metrics... lol",
">\n\nMississippi",
">\n\nIt's really simple: anything that is required to maintain living should be guaranteed by society for all. Food, water, shelter, and healthcare--at a minimum. Beyond that, electricity, internet access, and transportation should also be included as guaranteed services. I would also include things like education and work and/or UBI.\nOur government has trillions and yet we somehow cannot guarantee a basic standard of living for every human being who lives here. It's shameful.",
">\n\nWhen you have homeless shitting and throwing used needles in your yard, you start to understand the anger behind these laws.\nThis isn't the right way to go about it, but people want something done.",
">\n\nIt seems most people here who are criticizing these policies don't have to actually live near homeless people. Anyone who lives in a downtown area or nearby knows how bad it is. We all have to smell and see the shit, piss and trash left by homeless people every day on our streets and even our entrances. People are also getting stabbed and beaten by homeless people. Cities are unsafe and filthy partly because of them. It's really easy to criticize these policies from your comfortable suburban home far away from all the homeless people. If you had to live near them, you would be the first to scream at city hall to do something about it.",
">\n\nYeah no, they could spend the effort trying to actually rehouse these people and get them back in the work force instead of signing laws fining them money they obviously don't have to feed into the prison industry. Fuck outta here",
">\n\nThere are programs to help them, but you have to participate in the program. Lots of these people do not want that kind of help. They don't want a job. They prefer panhandling and being drug addicts. \nMaking it harder to live like that reroutes them to the help programs.",
">\n\nNo it doesn’t. Making life harder to live means people do whatever it takes to make it easier. Including especially the drugs you folks love to pretend is a problem for homeless people but not for you.",
">\n\nSo much for \"the land of the free\"",
">\n\nThis is sick. Fuck this place man.",
">\n\nJust like Jesus would want right?",
">\n\nHomelessness has crushed downtown Portland. The main tourist sector is quite literally filled with human shit, tents and violent crime. The police department was defunded and remade and the result is antipathy.\nEdit: Here is the link. Funds were removed from the budget and it is now branded as the Portland Police Bureau.",
">\n\nCan you please explain how charging these people with a $750 fine would put an end to this? Would they just all be moved to prison since they can't pay?"
] |
>
Pretty sure we need anti-homelessness laws, not anti-homeless. | [
"$750 fine for being homeless is hilarious.",
">\n\nI am sure that will stop it.\nI am losing my job, my income, my house, my family but I will stop all that because I might get fined $750.\nJust insane. Do these people not understand they are homeless because they don't have $750 to their name?",
">\n\nThey don't want to fix homelessness. The cruelty is the point. In some places it's illegal to sleep in your car. In some places it's illegal to have 4 roommates.",
">\n\nThey want to move them out of the towns and into the countryside, where they cannot be seen, so are easier to ignore.\nMaybe some would say eradicate, but we are not at Soylent Green levels yet.",
">\n\nNo, city dwellers in general don't want a bunch of homeless people around either. It's an insanely complex issue that nobody seems to want to address.\nI've never met a homeless advocate who wanted the homeless people to live on their street, on their sidewalk or in their alley.",
">\n\nI think people focus, rightfully, on where homeless people will sleep. I just wish there was A LOT more focus on why people are homeless in the first place. I would argue that a country with a homeless problem like ours is a failure, outright.\nYou don't get as many homeless people as we have without real inequality problems and a complete lack of willingness to assist those who fall on hard times. If every job paid a living wage, people would fall into the homelessness trap far less often. Yes, some would still, but many become homeless due to economic factors outside of their control. And once you're homeless, it's fucking HARD to end that cycle.",
">\n\nIt's complex but people seem to shy away from the drugs as the #1 cause. Hands down drugs is responsible and it doesn't matter how much you earn you can use enough drugs to throw it all away.\nI spend quite a bit of time doing community based drug and alcohol outreach and hands down fentanyl and meth are the #1 offender for why people are homeless and \"a living wage\" isn't even a nearby second.\nI don't necessarily disagree with you, like yeah, people who get treated like animals act like animals, so things like a living wage and a social safety net definitely help people not feel like they need drugs to treat some inadequacy in the first place.\nReally though, at this point drug and alcohol treatment centers instead of jail and prison is the way to go, which is why this new law is so misguided. Sober people up in a safe and understanding way and there's a lot of possibilities.\nBut when people are higher than a kite saying things like \"of they just need a job with a living wage\" is kinda just silly",
">\n\nI don't disagree, but I generally avoid pointing to drugs for the very thing we agree on: The economic conditions that people are forced to work under makes the drug use problems FAR worse than they would be if financial security was the norm. \nDrugs are and always have been an escape. Shit, I smoke weed damn near every day because if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to handle life, straight up. I'm getting better and smoking a lot less than I used to, but I'm also very fortunate to have never lost my house or job. \nI absolutely agree with your point about drug and alcohol treatment centers being an answer to the homelessness issue, rather than jail time. \nI would make the argument that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to tackle homelessness. Namely, we need public housing, drug and alcohol treatment centers (as well as decriminalization of drugs), and we need to ensure a decent living for every citizen who works full time. Throw in Universal healthcare too, since medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.\nAs a side tangent, one other reason I avoid the drug part of the conversation is because my experience with bringing that up has always been that right-wingers use drugs as a thin veil for their racism, and I don't like hearing racists talk. I'm not accusing you of that, it's just a knee-jerk reaction due to living in the midwest and being surrounded by republicans most of the time.",
">\n\nHousing imo is usually the number one thing that needs to be fixed, as its the hardest of the basic necessities for survival to maintain. The problem always resorts to that fixing a housong problem always will have pushback to it, regardless of political stance because as long as housing is considered an asset which appreciates in value overtime, there will always be people who will fight against it. People who are specifically hired to fix homelessness have less of an incentive to actually fix the problem, as they are out of the job if its done (similar to how road workers fix roads with temporary methods, because if a road is fixed and no longer breaks, thats less income)",
">\n\nSounds like we should embrace a society where profit isn't the primary motivating factor for anything to get done, eh?",
">\n\nFill our prisons laws",
">\n\nLaws like this are a direct result of Private prisons. For profit incarceration of the most vulnerable.",
">\n\nI really think this doesn't go far enough. Additional fines if you're longterm unemployed, have a longterm ilness or are disabled /s",
">\n\nJust bring back debtors prison.",
">\n\nGross. Somehow, not surprised.",
">\n\nWhy didn't we think of this earlier?! Make it illegal to be poor, and we would have eradicated poverty!",
">\n\nJust like how they outlawed rape in Texas and abortions declined!/s",
">\n\nWhen you talk to random people on reddit about homelessness you realize that unfortunately when many people say the \"homelessness problem\", they don't mean that there are homeless people, they mean that they have to see homeless people.\nMany people seem perfectly happy with out of sight out of mind when it comes to the homeless.",
">\n\nTypical conversation with a liberal (I'm a socdem) about homelessness:\nLiberal: \"the homelessness epidemic is inhumane. We must help these people.\"\nMe: \"yes, I agree with you 100%. Let's start a fundraiser to convert that old building into a homeless shelter or low income housing, so that-\"\nLiberal: \"ewwwww no, I don't want homeless people here. The property value of my family's house will go down and I don't wanna see a bunch of tweakers at night.\"\nMe: \".......... alright, I'll just do it myself. Sorry for bothering you.\"",
">\n\nHonest question, do you own a home yourself?",
">\n\nI'll answer your question if you tell me why you're asking. Seems like bait/a trap to me.",
">\n\nDude’s gonna pull the “WhY aReN’t YoU hOuSiNg ThEm??!!111",
">\n\nI own a home (well the bank does, but y'know), and I'd fully endorse using a nearby house as a shelter for people experiencing homelessness. Would it potentially lower property values? Maybe, but I don't really care. Would it potentially mean more petty crime in the area? Also maybe yes, but there are things that could be done to counter that, and the whole point is lifting people out of poverty so that crime isn't something they feel they need to resort to. So yeah, bring on the residential shelters!",
">\n\n\"We must solve homelessness by criminalizing it.\"\n\"We must stop abortion by outlawing it.\"\n\"You can't stop gun violence by outlawing guns!\"",
">\n\nDisgusting, inhumane and incredibly immoral. How is walking the earth and poverty a crime?",
">\n\n\nHow is walking the earth and poverty a crime?\n\nWhat's even funnier is that these people claim to be Christians, followers of a man who famously had \"no place to lay his head\" and traveled around mooching off of his followers.",
">\n\nMatthews 25:41-45",
">\n\nThe pillars of democracy are: robust public education, independent journalism, human rights, equality and justice. Promote the pillars of democracy in your house and amongst your friends. Talk about them, talk about how to re-establish them, how to amplify them. Get involved in every democratic process in your community too. Defend democracy good people - it is under direct attack. Rise up and defend democracy and the United States itself from this fascist Republican attack.",
">\n\nHow is the law not fair here? It is equally illegal for both the rich and poor to sleep under a bridge!\n/s",
">\n\nSomething tells me rich people still would never be prosecuted or fined for this lol",
">\n\nFor a party that prides itself on “Christian values” Republicans get off on some really evil shit.",
">\n\nDems involuntarily committing people isnt much better. It's not just a Blue v Red thing. It's a Rich v Poor thing.",
">\n\nOk but that's Eric Adams, he's a cop and a conservative, he's abnormal for Democrats.",
">\n\nGavin Newsome isnt (supposedly) conservative. Neither is Portland, where forced hospitalization of the homeless is also happening.\nAnd really, if he was abnormal, wed see the really blue places creating homes for the homeless. Please god tell me you have proof that I’m wrong though. I would happily be wrong about this.",
">\n\nOk I'll grant you that, but I would hope that these jurisdictions and leaders would not follow that particularly reprehensible lead.",
">\n\nWhy does “We need to get the homeless off the streets.” always sound so progressive in Europe and sinister in the US?",
">\n\nIn the US it often means just put them in prison instead of shoving them in cramped shelters",
">\n\nCapitalism can never solve homelessness, bc they dont make enough money from it. Hence why CA, NY, and WA continue to struggle with it, while places like Missouri make it even worse. There are no pro-homeless states in the US.",
">\n\nThey make a shitload of money off of it lol. Homeless shelters get paid for every bed they have filled. I used to work at a shelter and they’d let dudes stay who were clearly breaking rules or a danger to others because if they have unfilled beds they don’t receive as much money from the government. The entire game is keeping the shelter full, taking the money they give per person (let’s say the budget calls for 200 bucks of resources per resident) they do anything and everything to supply the lowest acceptable level of resources allowed, at as far under that 200 dollar limit as they can. Then they keep the excess money.",
">\n\nShelters aren’t solving homelessness. But good point on how most of our systems designed to help people are still just money making systems at the end of the day.",
">\n\nSpoiler alert, you can’t solve homelessness unless you can somehow force people to not be mentally ill or drug addicted. At the end of the day it has to start with the homeless person. No amount of forcing someone to do x y or z will solve this",
">\n\nCrimes committed against the homeless are already largely ignored. It’s only a matter of time before being homeless becomes grounds for sanctioned murder, like it’s fucking pest control.",
">\n\nLMAO I was homeless for a while and it already is.\nLots of unhoused folks particularly women go missing and never show back up.",
">\n\nThey'll put them in warehouses run by Geo Corp, then bill you, the taxpayer $750 per day for that \"service\". All of this nonsense, so that America can avoid looking at the reasons why there are so many homeless, and how to get someone back on their feet once homeless. It's dystopian.",
">\n\nHave to keep taxpayer dollars going to for-profit prisons somehow",
">\n\nThe choice is to either stay in a homeless shelter full of addicts and mentally ill people, or...? \nIt's so odd to me that we live in a \"free country\" but you can't even live in the woods because the woods is owned by somebody else.",
">\n\nImagine if we tried actually helping people for once instead of just punishing them.",
">\n\nOh you’re broke! Let’s just help you out with a little prison time too. It’s what Jesus would do.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nCities across the country have seen a backlash to attempts by officials to remove homeless encampments or limit where unhoused people can camp.\nProtesters marched through the downtown Chicago area in November to protest against the city's announcement that donated winterized tents for homeless people had to be removed for street cleaning, reported the Chicago Tribune.\nY Robelo, founder of the non-profit Feeding People Through Plants, provided the tents and criticized the city's treatment of homeless people.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: people^#1 city^#2 law^#3 homeless^#4 new^#5",
">\n\n‘Anti-homeless’ laws sound as stupid as ‘anti-sneezing’ laws. \nJust because you rule out something it doesn’t mean it ceases to exist, when the ‘offenders’ have little power over it.",
">\n\nIt’s almost like there’s money to be made in the privatisation of prisons or something.",
">\n\nJust making it illegal to be poor now so they can fill prisons and get slave labor from the inmates, on top of taking away their rights in general and making a profit from it.",
">\n\nWhen their prison budgets blow up at least they will have solved the homeless problem, by actually housing in a WAY more expensive way.\nLocking people is not a solution, it is cruel but that’s republicans.",
">\n\nIf there wasn't so much financial inequality, affordable housing, decent wages and healthcare for all, there wouldn't be anti-homeless laws. Jfc this is not hard but due to corruption and a broken system, here we are.",
">\n\nSo damned wrong!!!!",
">\n\nThis is a cash grab to fill private prisons.",
">\n\nIm not sure about other areas laws but up here in the PNW the new laws are going after large camp sites, and areas of increased crime/violence. \nMore notably the only ones in effect that make it illegal to sleep out in public is if there is a support center within walking distance and it has enough capacity to house the person. \nWe get a lot of people echoing the sentiment that its an attack on the homeless and what not but when you have someone setup a tent behind your backyard or see your family threatened youll change your tune too.",
">\n\nIf you set up actual housing for them then itd stop being seen as an attack.",
">\n\nAre you volunteering your backyard for their housing? \nBecause no one else is.",
">\n\nI mean, some people in Eugene do exactly that. But like, if you put a mentally unstable tweaker in a house, they'll just magically become a valuable part of society? Mentally ill cannot care for themselves. Putting homeless in houses isn't going to solve shit, they'll still be out there doing their thing. Being in a house isn't going to stop people from shitting on the sidewalk in front of your store if you piss them off.",
">\n\nYes thank you!\nThat is exactly why our area is focusing more on supporting services AND affordable housing. \nIm so tired of people claiming that the only solution to just build tiny villages or just let them camp out then everything will work itself out.",
">\n\nPeople don’t act as if it’s the only solution, it’s the required first step. Having housing makes all the rest of the support services infinitely easier.",
">\n\nWe should pass laws saying it’s illegal to have less than a million dollars.\nThat way, I would magically have a million dollars.",
">\n\nIsn't Missouri where Brett Favre and the governor stole millions of dollars of welfare funds to build a volleyball stadium for Favre's daughter's college in his name? Wonder why they're perpetually last in most important metrics... lol",
">\n\nMississippi",
">\n\nIt's really simple: anything that is required to maintain living should be guaranteed by society for all. Food, water, shelter, and healthcare--at a minimum. Beyond that, electricity, internet access, and transportation should also be included as guaranteed services. I would also include things like education and work and/or UBI.\nOur government has trillions and yet we somehow cannot guarantee a basic standard of living for every human being who lives here. It's shameful.",
">\n\nWhen you have homeless shitting and throwing used needles in your yard, you start to understand the anger behind these laws.\nThis isn't the right way to go about it, but people want something done.",
">\n\nIt seems most people here who are criticizing these policies don't have to actually live near homeless people. Anyone who lives in a downtown area or nearby knows how bad it is. We all have to smell and see the shit, piss and trash left by homeless people every day on our streets and even our entrances. People are also getting stabbed and beaten by homeless people. Cities are unsafe and filthy partly because of them. It's really easy to criticize these policies from your comfortable suburban home far away from all the homeless people. If you had to live near them, you would be the first to scream at city hall to do something about it.",
">\n\nYeah no, they could spend the effort trying to actually rehouse these people and get them back in the work force instead of signing laws fining them money they obviously don't have to feed into the prison industry. Fuck outta here",
">\n\nThere are programs to help them, but you have to participate in the program. Lots of these people do not want that kind of help. They don't want a job. They prefer panhandling and being drug addicts. \nMaking it harder to live like that reroutes them to the help programs.",
">\n\nNo it doesn’t. Making life harder to live means people do whatever it takes to make it easier. Including especially the drugs you folks love to pretend is a problem for homeless people but not for you.",
">\n\nSo much for \"the land of the free\"",
">\n\nThis is sick. Fuck this place man.",
">\n\nJust like Jesus would want right?",
">\n\nHomelessness has crushed downtown Portland. The main tourist sector is quite literally filled with human shit, tents and violent crime. The police department was defunded and remade and the result is antipathy.\nEdit: Here is the link. Funds were removed from the budget and it is now branded as the Portland Police Bureau.",
">\n\nCan you please explain how charging these people with a $750 fine would put an end to this? Would they just all be moved to prison since they can't pay?",
">\n\nI never said it wasnt a problem. I was in Portland last Spring and I see that it's a problem there. I'm asking how a fine would alleviate the solution or at least asking for an alternative."
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.