Re: Re: 'Screw your rights and lives, think about our feelings!'
the city wouldn’t allow opposing Points of view have similar access to express themselves
I'm not aware of any case law that would require the city to sponsor a "Black Lives Don't Matter" mural (which is, after all, the opposing viewpoint). Can you cite any? Not being snarky, because when government gets involved in speech it gets complicated quickly.
Re: Re: Where does anyone get this silly notion...
protests, threats and boycots
As long as we're not talking about actual threats of violence, that's all fine. It's perfectly consistent with free speech to use your speech to oppose things you disagree with. It's when they start using government power to crack down on speech that it's a problem.
From the point on after the SCOTUS ruling, bills will be shot down and unappealable.
Incorrect. Even if this is ruled against by the Supreme Court, a legislature could enact a similar law, which would be challenged in court, and presumably found unconstitutional, and then the state could decide to appeal it to a higher level.
So a Supreme Court decision will make this particular law dead and buried, but it will not:
prevent any similar bills from being passed in the future
prevent court decisions involving such bills from being appealed
Is that the "Unlimited....no, no really. This time we do actually mean unlimited. Yes everything including movies, social media and everything. And no we won't just change what we mean 6 months from now" unlimited data plan?
No, it's still limited. "Customers will also get a bump from 30GB of monthly hotspot data up to 40GB"
My point is that most arguments against section 230 are based in a complete misunderstanding of either section 230, the first amendment, private property rights, or some combination thereof. So what difference would a Supreme Court decision make? People will just misunderstand that, in addition to everything else.
maybe other states will stop trying to pass such blatantly stupid and unconstitutional laws.
Since the purpose is not to enact law but to stir up the voter base, a Supreme Court decision will have little to no effect on these bills being drafted.
When the only tool that you want to have in your box looks like legislation (to take away guns), then every problem starts to look like it's caused by guns.
Do you have enough guns to shoot down that straw man?
On the post: Senator Steve Daines Decides To Spit On The 1st Amendment Again: Wants To Ban Moderation Of Politicians
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, you know...
My guess is people who advocate that black people deserve the same rights and treatment as white people.
On the post: Senator Steve Daines Decides To Spit On The 1st Amendment Again: Wants To Ban Moderation Of Politicians
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, you know...
Or in alt-right speak, "equally dangerous".
On the post: Five Palo Alto Cops Sue The City And Their PD, Claiming A Black Lives Matter Mural Harassed Them
Re: Re: 'Screw your rights and lives, think about our feelings!'
I'm not aware of any case law that would require the city to sponsor a "Black Lives Don't Matter" mural (which is, after all, the opposing viewpoint). Can you cite any? Not being snarky, because when government gets involved in speech it gets complicated quickly.
On the post: Buried Apple Privacy Scandal Undermines Its Attacks On Right To Repair Legislation
Re: Re:
Why would that make companies liable for user stupidity?
On the post: Senator Steve Daines Decides To Spit On The 1st Amendment Again: Wants To Ban Moderation Of Politicians
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Duh!
They can already post whatever they want to their congressional web pages.
On the post: Senator Steve Daines Decides To Spit On The 1st Amendment Again: Wants To Ban Moderation Of Politicians
Re: Re: Where does anyone get this silly notion...
As long as we're not talking about actual threats of violence, that's all fine. It's perfectly consistent with free speech to use your speech to oppose things you disagree with. It's when they start using government power to crack down on speech that it's a problem.
On the post: Rep. Lauren Boebert Decides To Streisand Parody Site Making Fun Of Her, Threatens To Take Legal Action Against It
Re: Re: Re: Re: There are more pages
Yes, there are very conservative people everywhere. Seattle, NYC, San Francisco, etc.
On the post: Florida
ManGovernor Wastes More Florida Taxpayer Money Appealing Ruling About His Unconstitutional Social Media LawRe: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On to the next stop:
Yes, the appeal can be denied immediately, but it cannot be prevented (AFAIK).
On the post: Florida
ManGovernor Wastes More Florida Taxpayer Money Appealing Ruling About His Unconstitutional Social Media LawRe: Re: Re: Re: Re: On to the next stop:
Incorrect. Even if this is ruled against by the Supreme Court, a legislature could enact a similar law, which would be challenged in court, and presumably found unconstitutional, and then the state could decide to appeal it to a higher level.
So a Supreme Court decision will make this particular law dead and buried, but it will not:
On the post: You Can Now Pay AT&T Extra To Adhere To The Dictionary Definition Of 'Unlimited'
Re: Really?
No, it's still limited. "Customers will also get a bump from 30GB of monthly hotspot data up to 40GB"
On the post: Florida
ManGovernor Wastes More Florida Taxpayer Money Appealing Ruling About His Unconstitutional Social Media LawRe: Re: Re: On to the next stop:
My point is that most arguments against section 230 are based in a complete misunderstanding of either section 230, the first amendment, private property rights, or some combination thereof. So what difference would a Supreme Court decision make? People will just misunderstand that, in addition to everything else.
On the post: Florida
ManGovernor Wastes More Florida Taxpayer Money Appealing Ruling About His Unconstitutional Social Media LawRe: On to the next stop:
There is little if any meaningful pressure anyone can put on the Supreme Court to review a case, or to do or not do anything. By design.
Because the debate is so firmly rooted in fact and law? lol
On the post: Florida
ManGovernor Wastes More Florida Taxpayer Money Appealing Ruling About His Unconstitutional Social Media LawRe:
Since the purpose is not to enact law but to stir up the voter base, a Supreme Court decision will have little to no effect on these bills being drafted.
On the post: Sixth Circuit Says School Board Can't Boot People From Meetings Just Because It Doesn't Like What They're Saying
Facts
Just a side note, but what a weird comment. People aren't supposed to voice opinions at a school board meeting?
On the post: Sixth Circuit Says School Board Can't Boot People From Meetings Just Because It Doesn't Like What They're Saying
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you have enough guns to shoot down that straw man?
On the post: Utah Deputy Arrests Person For Destroying 'Back The Blue' Sign, Adds Hate Crime Enhancement For 'Smirking'
Re: Re: Re:
Would you consider altering the flag to be dishonoring it?
https://highlandscurrent.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/AdobeStock_268758608-1170x658.jpg
https: //foreignpolicy.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/QANON-TRUMP-ELECTION-1.jpg?w=1000
https://pbs.twimg.c om/media/ErE5rGdWMAAezXC.jpg:large
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/2302/7931/products/71A04BRihXL. _SL1100_1024x1024.jpg?v=1546591649
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2020/06/21/us/21tulsascene-print1 /21tulsascene-1-mobileMasterAt3x.jpg
How about taking down the US flag at the capitol, and replacing it with a Trump flag?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ErE5rGdWMAAezXC.jpg:large
On the post: It Appears That Jason Miller's GETTR Is Speed Running The Content Moderation Learning Curve Faster Than Parler
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No free speech
I will probably regret asking this, but what's the difference between proper moderation and censorship?
On the post: It Appears That Jason Miller's GETTR Is Speed Running The Content Moderation Learning Curve Faster Than Parler
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: innocuous leader
"My mistake is an innocent mistake anyone could make, that other person's mistake is because they're stupid." Classy.
On the post: Utah Deputy Arrests Person For Destroying 'Back The Blue' Sign, Adds Hate Crime Enhancement For 'Smirking'
Re:
Some people actually decide things based on principle rather than partisanship, believe it or not.
On the post: Biden Executive Order Disrupts Hot DC Trend Of Pretending 'Big Telecom' Doesn't Exist
Re: Executive Orders
Issuing directions to parts of the executive branch is exactly what executive orders are for. It's not legislation.
Next >>