838
‘Maybe we should go after you’ Trump threatens ABC reporter asking about free speech
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2025
838 points (99.1% liked)
Not The Onion
18089 readers
1493 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There was period of time during Trump's last administration where the world just got so crazy I had a collection of screenshots of "not the onion" headlines that just seemed too insane to be real.
I remember one was like "Judge determines woman can't prove she didn't want to be set on fire."
This would fit in nicely.
Huh.......I'm trying to think of what legal defense you could give to PROVE you didn't want to be set on fire.
I can't think of one. What do you say that proves it? Which means I get how that headline happened, but also.....how did THAT headline happen???
Most of the time when weird questions like that involving consent come up, I assume it probably involved some kind of sex thing.
The only thing I can think of is that there was some sort of event where other people were being willingly set on fire. Like if were some sort of performance that went wrong, I could see there being a reasonable defense that the performer didn't know she didn't want to participate.
It could also be a kink thing.
my lay person understanding of the law is that in situations like these you don't need to prove what should be so overwhelmingly self-evident
there's probably some Latin phrase for it a lawyer would just know but when a thing is so far away from a gray area of reasonableness you're fine
you shouldn't need hard evidence, people as a rule don't like to set themselves on fire