• CubitOom@infosec.pubOPEnglish
      162·
      13 days ago

      Video is just another form of media.

      With exception to the introduction which uses video evidence to set the stage for what they will talk about. Most of the video is framing the historical context with legal precedent (which would be better done with text imho) although they do use archival footage to exemplify the time periods being talked about. Watching the KKK march down the street is different than reading about it.

      However, an important part of the video, the “We Are Not Powerless” chapter uses video examples and talks about them directly. This is similar to how one can use quotes in text but it’s a lot easier to do this in video when you are talking about a chaotic recording of a crime which has many small details in it. The speaker also talks about the importance of actually seeing what is happening and to not look away.

      Personally, I think it’s a very well done and important video dispite the YouTube shilling and self promotion (which I auto skip with SponsorBlock) and worth a watch.

      However, if you don’t have time to watch a ~30 min video. I’ll help you skip to the end.

      TLDR: If the 5 words “of The United States or …” were added to the text of Section 1983, then people could sue “federal agents” for violations of their freedoms protected by the Constitution and it’s amendments.

      PS, I think media literacy is more than just being able to read and understand text. Firstly, there are people with disabilities like dyslexia. Secondly, when you watch a movie like Casino (1985) and misinterpret it, you might end up like Stephen Miller.

      • DomeGuy@lemmy.worldEnglish
        26·
        13 days ago

        “just watch the video, it’s fine if you use this third party app to remove the embedded ad” is not the ringing endorsement you think it is.

        Especially if the whole point is a sovergin-citizen esque reading of the constitution that ignores either the legislation or supreme court precedent that argued against the point.

        (While it’s stupid, offensive, and.un-american, ICE agents DO currently enjoy personal immunity for any acts done in accordance with ICE directives.)

        • BussyGyatt@feddit.orgEnglish
          22·
          12 days ago

          Especially if the whole point is a sovergin-citizen esque reading of the constitution that ignores either the legislation or supreme court precedent that argued against the point.

          how you gonna not watch the video then talk ignorant bullshit about what the video is supposed to be, and dont give me “i did watch the video” cuz if you had you wouldnt be able to talk that ignorant bullshit like you did. not in good faith anyway

    • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.worldEnglish
      56·
      13 days ago

      Because that is how modern content is consumed these days. No one reads anymore, and that presumably includes this very message.

      Edit: The pair of comments attached to this are kind of a case in point, and not doing anything to restore my faith in anybody’s literacy. Although perhaps this is intentional as some subtle form of satire.

  • Rob T Firefly@lemmy.worldEnglish
    10·
    13 days ago

    To defuse the clickbait for what amounts to a long commercial for a law firm, the “five words” the title refers to is the Bivens act, a proposed law which would add the five words “of the United States or” to an existing law allowing people to seek recourse against State or Local officials for abuse of Constitutional rights, basically adding Federal officials to those State and Local constrained by the law. (This is my understanding as a layperson, I’m no lawyer and I’d appreciate any corrections.)

    More info:

    As a proposed law which has been floating around in Congress since 2024 and is effectively dead now, and which certainly doesn’t align with the fascist controlling party’s goals, it has approximately a snowball’s chance in hell of anything coming of it besides masturbatory videos like this making some chumps some change.

    • CubitOom@infosec.pubOPEnglish
      2·
      13 days ago

      I agree, being able to sue the fascist doesn’t fix the issue but it’s better than them having total immunity.