Actually, I in general rather disapprove of Trump. A lesser evil is still evil. His authoritarian tendencies and stance on security theater frankly horrify me.
However, you are still clearly suffering from delusions.
Free speech is for everyone, no exceptions, even people that probably don't deserve the title of people.
If you can somehow teach a rat to talk, it deserves free speech too, because the ability to think and speak at all automagically qualifies one for the right to do so freely.
NO EXCEPTIONS.
(and before some ass chimes in that this isn't an argument; that's right, this isn't an argument, this is an assertion. Far wiser people than me have already made the case for free speech, and their arguments have been proven correct by the passage of history. Deal with it.)
>but each word is coated with the grit of Dr. Berger's tooth enamel.
Not only is that some of the most evocative and entertaining language I've read today, but it's also highly accurate. You can feel the hate and impotent rage dripping out of every word in that dismissal. Fuck that slapp happy bastard right in his wallet.
Hmmm, from your final paragraph it feels like you're one of those assholes that constantly proclaims free speech is defined by the first amendment instead of recognized by it.
Here's a refresher: Free speech is a human right. It is not GRANTED by the government or the constitution. It is merely recognised. People have the right to free speech no matter where they live and no matter what their government espouses.
Heavy handed moderation of the sort practised by Reddit (especially), Twitter, Google et al very much IS censorship. Even if not necessarily in any isolated case it absolutely is when you look at the pattern of what gets censored.
You can make an argument that they're free to censor what they please, as part of their freedom of speech and freedom of association, however, that doesn't magically make it not censorship.
But higher denomination bills are more likely to be tainted with coke. You should just used electronic payments instead and let the government keep proper track of it, citizen.
Ummm, yeeaaahhh, Russian propaganda is protected by the first amendment just like our own propaganda.
If the (formerly) Red Menace is able to convince our people via the power of their words, then that means they won the battle of ideas. This whole Russia scare is one giant temper tantrum by the Democratic party that they got caught behaving badly, and possibly illegally.
There are no propaganda exceptions to the first amendment, just like there are no hate speech exceptions. There are also no exceptions for deliberate falsehoods, because a lie can still serve as a parable.
Here's the full text "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
This is definitely the worst headline I've seen in quite some time. I'd probably reword it as "UK Terrorism Law Used To Prosecute Man Who Fought Against Actual Terrorists For Possessing A Copy Of 'The Anarchist Cookbook'"
But even that is not 100% clear. It leaves open the question of whether he was prosecuted for owning the book, or whether he fought terrorists because they owned the book.
I fully agree with El Trumpo's restrictions on so-called "refugees", and still want those ads here. Satire is an essential component of free speech, and a powerful tool of political speech.
Attempting to ban, regulate, or in any way restrict satire is antithetical to a free society, and should be grounds for being given a cigarette and a sunny wall to stand next to.
One thing I've not heard anyone who advocates for a federal slapp statute explain is what the constitutional basis for such would be. Remember, any power not EXPLICITLY granted to the federal government by the constitution is reserved for the states instead.
Re:
Never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by malice.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
However, you are still clearly suffering from delusions.
Re: Re: Re:
Re: Conflicted about Marc Randazza
If you can somehow teach a rat to talk, it deserves free speech too, because the ability to think and speak at all automagically qualifies one for the right to do so freely.
NO EXCEPTIONS.
(and before some ass chimes in that this isn't an argument; that's right, this isn't an argument, this is an assertion. Far wiser people than me have already made the case for free speech, and their arguments have been proven correct by the passage of history. Deal with it.)
(untitled comment)
Not only is that some of the most evocative and entertaining language I've read today, but it's also highly accurate. You can feel the hate and impotent rage dripping out of every word in that dismissal. Fuck that slapp happy bastard right in his wallet.
(untitled comment)
Here's a refresher: Free speech is a human right. It is not GRANTED by the government or the constitution. It is merely recognised. People have the right to free speech no matter where they live and no matter what their government espouses.
Heavy handed moderation of the sort practised by Reddit (especially), Twitter, Google et al very much IS censorship. Even if not necessarily in any isolated case it absolutely is when you look at the pattern of what gets censored.
You can make an argument that they're free to censor what they please, as part of their freedom of speech and freedom of association, however, that doesn't magically make it not censorship.
(untitled comment)
You're assuming they're making an honest mistake instead of pushing an agenda. That's not a particularly wise assumption.
Re:
It's customized WINE with support.
Re: Re: Re:
Re: Re: All Money is now arrestable based on this
(untitled comment)
If the (formerly) Red Menace is able to convince our people via the power of their words, then that means they won the battle of ideas. This whole Russia scare is one giant temper tantrum by the Democratic party that they got caught behaving badly, and possibly illegally.
There are no propaganda exceptions to the first amendment, just like there are no hate speech exceptions. There are also no exceptions for deliberate falsehoods, because a lie can still serve as a parable.
Here's the full text "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
(untitled comment)
Re: Re: Ambiguous headline...
Re: Ambiguous headline...
But even that is not 100% clear. It leaves open the question of whether he was prosecuted for owning the book, or whether he fought terrorists because they owned the book.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Re: Re: Re:
Speech and action are not equivalent, and never will be. Action can deserve the consequences of law. Speech never should.
Re:
Attempting to ban, regulate, or in any way restrict satire is antithetical to a free society, and should be grounds for being given a cigarette and a sunny wall to stand next to.
Re: Yes, so mysterious
Re:
Re: Re: Re:
People who do have access: governments, including the intelligence and military arms, miners, building demolitions people.
More comments from GristleMissile >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by GristleMissile.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt