SCOTUS Murthy vs Missouri hearing

[BabyBoomer50s]

Major free speech case. Jonathan Turley is providing real time play by play analysis on X.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1769726988162363483

 

[Rightguide]

Major free speech case. Jonathan Turley is providing real time play by play analysis on X.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1769726988162363483

Hopefully, the SCOTUS will rein in the excesses of our goose-stepping President and his Marxist dwarfs.

 

[ll74]

Hopefully, the SCOTUS will rein in the excesses of our goose-stepping President and his Marxist dwarfs.

Social media policies haven't changed under the current President.

 

[HisArpy]

I find it interesting that the highest court is going to opine on the "degree" of censorship which is allowable.

Meanwhile, those who go astray of the Constitution escape any punishment regardless of how wrongful their conduct.


Which makes you wonder whether the highest court is wasting our time since, whatever they decide, there are no consequences for breaching whatever limit is set.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Turley says that Jackson has been the justice most deferential to the government.

 

[HisArpy]

Turley says that Jackson has been the justice most deferential to the government.

Jackson is a tool. She was promoted by the government as a tool to be used for a specific purpose. She was ensconced into the governmental system as a tool to be used for a specific purpose. She has finally reached the pinnacle of tooldom in her elevation to the SCOTUS because she can be used by the government for a specific purpose.

She is, and always will be, a tool. The ONLY issue remaining is whether she's a tool for the people, or for the government. At this point in time it's fairly obvious who is her master and who gets screwed by her master's use of their tool.

 

[Rotadom]

Major free speech case. Jonathan Turley is providing real time play by play analysis on X.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1769726988162363483

Don't worry, you will still be able to support your anti-semites and racist heroes without consequence.

Meanwhile, those who go astray of the Constitution escape any punishment regardless of how wrongful their conduct

Yet you'll vote for him for him as president for a third time.

 

[HisArpy]

Don't worry, you will still be able to support your anti-semites and racist heroes without consequence.

Yet you'll vote for him for him as president for a third time.

1. It's not the Right who are leading protests at universities against the Jews in favor of the Palestinians who murdered and raped innocents en mass last October.

2. My vote is my business and none of yours.

 

[Rotadom]

1. It's not the Right who are leading protests at universities against the Jews in favor of the Palestinians who murdered and raped innocents en mass last October.

2. My vote is my business and none of yours.

1. What the hell does that have to do with the price of tea in China? What does that have to do with our constitution?

2. Okay, boomer.

 

[Rightguide]

I find it interesting that the highest court is going to opine on the "degree" of censorship which is allowable.

Meanwhile, those who go astray of the Constitution escape any punishment regardless of how wrongful their conduct.


Which makes you wonder whether the highest court is wasting our time since, whatever they decide, there are no consequences for breaching whatever limit is set.

Maybe they will toss the limits altogether.

 

[HisArpy]

Maybe they will toss the limits altogether.

They can't.


Based on precedent hate speech can be censored. Fighting words too. Time/Place/Manner restrictions also can't be done away with. The entity responsible for controlling this is the government.

The argument here is how far can the government go in its zeal to censor speech. Which is an admission that the 1st amendment can be violated with impunity on the part of the very government it was designed to restrict. To put it another way, no matter which way the court goes down that road the 1st amendment no longer exists because the Constitution is no longer a restriction on government, it's a granting of privileges to the citizenry at the whim of that government as decreed by the courts which exist at the behest and payment of that government.

The answer, in my mind, is for the courts to determine the answer to one question: Did the government engage in the restricted behavior or not? If so, then the government should be punished by removal from office for life ANY PERSON who so engaged in the prohibited act. From a lowly administrative secretary all the way up to the President, NONE OF THEM should be allowed to remain in public office or seek public office in the future.

Anything else is a violation of the 1st Amendment restriction because it allows the violation to go unpunished and unremediated.

 

[Rotadom]

They can't.


Based on precedent hate speech can be censored. Fighting words too. Time/Place/Manner restrictions also can't be done away with. The entity responsible for controlling this is the government.

The argument here is how far can the government go in its zeal to censor speech. Which is an admission that the 1st amendment can be violated with impunity on the part of the very government it was designed to restrict. To put it another way, no matter which way the court goes down that road the 1st amendment no longer exists because the Constitution is no longer a restriction on government, it's a granting of privileges to the citizenry at the whim of that government as decreed by the courts which exist at the behest and payment of that government.

The answer, in my mind, is for the courts to determine the answer to one question: Did the government engage in the restricted behavior or not? If so, then the government should be punished by removal from office for life ANY PERSON who so engaged in the prohibited act. From a lowly administrative secretary all the way up to the President, NONE OF THEM should be allowed to remain in public office or seek public office in the future.

Anything else is a violation of the 1st Amendment restriction because it allows the violation to go unpunished and unremediated.

It's cute that still think people trust your opinions on the law.

 

[HisArpy]

It's cute that still think people trust your opinions on the law.

Lol.

You still here? Dam son I'd have thought you'd have realized a long time ago that you're a dipshit and you'd have oozed back under that rock you came out from under just to hide your embarrassed face.

Shame on me for thinking you were smart enough to figure that out on your own.

 

[Rotadom]

Lol.

You still here? Dam son I'd have thought you'd have realized a long time ago that you're a dipshit and you'd have oozed back under that rock you came out from under just to hide your embarrassed face.

Shame on me for thinking you were smart enough to figure that out on your own.

Such an angry little kitten!

*gives pets*

 

[HisArpy]

Such an angry little kitten!

*gives pets*

Lol. It's like you think that being a dooRmat puts you in charge anywhere let alone having any sort of power when you're in my presence.

 

[Rotadom]

Lol. It's like you think that being a dooRmat puts you in charge anywhere let alone having any sort of power when you're in my presence.

This doesn't make sense on any level, Consuela.

 

[HisArpy]

This doesn't make sense on any level, Consuela.

Not my fault you're too stupid and lazy to pay attention in class.

 

[Rotadom]

Not my fault you're too stupid and lazy to pay attention in class.

The fact that you feel this is a pertinent response to my post lets everyone know that you're still one of the dumbest morons here.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Justice Jackson complained about the First Amendment hamstringing the Feds efforts to censor speech on social media

https://twitter.com/x/status/1769794015442960497

 

[Lazaran]

Justice Jackson expressed concerns about the misapplication / misinterpretation of the First Amendment hamstringing the Feds efforts to curb the proliferation of disinformation / misinformation from malign actors (foreign and domestic) on social media

https://twitter.com/x/status/1769794015442960497

Fyp; yw



BabyBoobs

 

[Rotadom]

Fyp; yw



BabyBoobs

His interpretations of what people actually say can be pretty comical.

 

[Lazaran]

His interpretations of what people actually say can be pretty comical.

Except, I don’t find BabyBoobs’ lying and gaslighting comical at all.

And the POS uses innocent children as political footballs…

 

[Rotadom]

Except, I don’t find BabyBoobs’ lying and gaslighting comical at all.

And the POS uses innocent children as political footballs…

I get it. We can only use his alcoholism as an excuse for so long.

 

[HisArpy]

The fact that you feel this is a pertinent response to my post lets everyone know that you're still one of the dumbest morons here.

Again, it's not my fault you're too stupid or lazy to pay attention in class. Please attempt to do better in your remedial classes.

 

[HisArpy]

Justice Jackson complained about the First Amendment hamstringing the Feds efforts to censor speech on social media

https://twitter.com/x/status/1769794015442960497

I find this interesting. It's almost as if she believes that the Constitution grants rights to the citizenry rather than being a restriction on Government. If that's true she's not fit for her position and should be removed post haste.