You want to criticize Bibi? You want to criticize the policies of Israel? Well guess what, buddy, you just did an anti-semitism AND a terrorism. The feds are on their way!
You want to criticize Bibi? You want to criticize the policies of Israel? Well guess what, buddy, you just did an anti-semitism AND a terrorism. The feds are on their way!
You want to criticize Bibi? You want to criticize the policies of Israel? Well guess what, buddy, you just did an anti-semitism AND a terrorism. The feds are on their way!
It was never unlimited.
It's unlimited for expression of political opinions and criticism of government.
This new law is insane and if it somehow is allowed by the courts, that's the end of the First Amendment
There is no alleged "new law." Only god's law. The police need to stomp these Islamic terrorist sympathizers into gorilla cookies. First Amendment, my azz. I got your First Amendment right here [motioning].
Of course! Calling someone the N word is not nearly as bad saying that Israel should stop killing kids. You must support their right to kill as many people as they want in the name of "self defense." Otherwise, you are a bigot.
If you were able to say it, you wouldn't have to speak the word in code like you just did.
The bottom line is that anti-Semites are going to have to huddle up with their lawyers to discuss what they can get away with under this House bill. Ask them about any safe harbor provisions. There's always some safe harbor stuff.
You want to criticize Bibi? You want to criticize the policies of Israel? Well guess what, buddy, you just did an anti-semitism AND a terrorism. The feds are on their way!
Good thing we can all freely go unlimited cacca. Imagine if there was a limit on things coming out of every orifice.
We have over a century of precedent with a standard of “imminent lawless action” being the key doctrine, having replaced “clear and present danger” and “bad tendency” as a means of identifying the limit.
Im also not sure, but I think you may find instances of Southern opponents of segregation invoking not only states rights but also First Amendment protections, which then fell to a series of arguments and actions, not least of which was invocation of the Insurrection Act.
if you’re concerned about the destruction of First Amendment rights now, I suppose they hadn’t been previously destroyed in those instances.
Nor were they destroyed by the Alien and Sedition acts during the John Adams administration, although I would consider the act administration and more of Adams attitude and actions generally to be threats to First Amendment rights. But we do have a presidential candidate right now who has greater animosity toward the press and his threatened more punitive measures against the press, than any president since Adams.
And I think current circumstances do warrant reasonable discussion of appropriate action and First Amendment rights. I believe OP has no intention of conducting a good faith argument about those things, and merely wants to serve an ignoble ulterior motive under the cloak of something noble
assembly and protest are one thing. the college heard you and decided the other way. you then occupy the campus or take over buildings. and issue a list of demands. that's coercion. the constitution doesn't say you own the place if we disagree with the speech. basic democracy issues.
worse, to me, it's unironically imitating a general history of resorting to coercive, undemocratic means in terms of the palestinian plight, which have netted squat, in fact, their situation has probably eroded more.
last, despite the institutions involved, the leaders seem dim, i mean, a half brained student of the history should be able to make a comparison in front of a tv camera between them being shoved off an encampment and the palestinian history. but instead they have to be aggressive and issue demands like they seized an el-al jet.
But isn't freedom of speech being able to say things without having to suffer consequences?
I'm sure I could go into downtown Tehran and start yelling "I support Israel! I support women! I support gay rights! ", but I wouldn't because of what would happen to me.
But isn't freedom of speech being able to say things without having to suffer consequences?
I'm sure I could go into downtown Tehran and start yelling "I support Israel! I support women! I support gay rights! ", but I wouldn't because of what would happen to me.
Is that freedom of speech?
Asking for a gay, Jewish, female friend!
I am a little more concerned about the erosion of our free speech to protect Israel