I'm just curious, can anyone interpret what Ketanji Jackson Brown means
when she made this statement against the First Amendment in the Supreme Court?
"I’ve heard you say a couple times that the government can post its own speech. But, in my hypothetical, you know, kids, this is not safe, don’t
do it, is not going to get it done."
Good analysis of the Supreme Court case here:
https://www.amren.com/features/2024/03/the-last-stand-for-free-speech/
On 3/23/2024 11:44 AM, Lucas McCain wrote:
I'm just curious, can anyone interpret what Ketanji Jackson Brown
means when she made this statement against the First Amendment in the
Supreme Court?
"I’ve heard you say a couple times that the government can post its
own speech. But, in my hypothetical, you know, kids, this is not
safe, don’t do it, is not going to get it done."
She presented a hypothetical where people are posting that kids should
accept the challenge of jumping out of windows at increasing height.
She then questions whether the government would be violating the First Amendment if it tried to persuade the hosting tech companies to take
the challenge down. The respondents argued it would (!!??) and the
government can only declare to the general public that the content
should be take down, but not directly to the tech company hosting the content.
That's nuts, and I think the Court will say so.
Good analysis of the Supreme Court case here:
https://www.amren.com/features/2024/03/the-last-stand-for-free-speech/
On 3/23/24 3:15 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/23/2024 11:44 AM, Lucas McCain wrote:Is there a plus side? Maybe those that are stupid enough to take such a challenge are not worthy for inclusion in the worlds future. The old
I'm just curious, can anyone interpret what Ketanji Jackson Brown
means when she made this statement against the First Amendment in the
Supreme Court?
"I’ve heard you say a couple times that the government can post its
own speech. But, in my hypothetical, you know, kids, this is not
safe, don’t do it, is not going to get it done."
She presented a hypothetical where people are posting that kids should
accept the challenge of jumping out of windows at increasing height.
She then questions whether the government would be violating the First
Amendment if it tried to persuade the hosting tech companies to take
the challenge down. The respondents argued it would (!!??) and the
government can only declare to the general public that the content
should be take down, but not directly to the tech company hosting the
content.
That's nuts, and I think the Court will say so.
Good analysis of the Supreme Court case here:
https://www.amren.com/features/2024/03/the-last-stand-for-free-speech/
saying is true, 'You can't fool mother nature".
On 3/23/2024 2:49 PM, Nic wrote:
On 3/23/24 3:15 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/23/2024 11:44 AM, Lucas McCain wrote:Is there a plus side? Maybe those that are stupid enough to take such
I'm just curious, can anyone interpret what Ketanji Jackson Brown
means when she made this statement against the First Amendment in
the Supreme Court?
"I’ve heard you say a couple times that the government can post its
own speech. But, in my hypothetical, you know, kids, this is not
safe, don’t do it, is not going to get it done."
She presented a hypothetical where people are posting that kids
should accept the challenge of jumping out of windows at increasing
height. She then questions whether the government would be violating
the First Amendment if it tried to persuade the hosting tech
companies to take the challenge down. The respondents argued it would
(!!??) and the government can only declare to the general public that
the content should be take down, but not directly to the tech company
hosting the content.
That's nuts, and I think the Court will say so.
Good analysis of the Supreme Court case here:
https://www.amren.com/features/2024/03/the-last-stand-for-free-speech/
a challenge are not worthy for inclusion in the worlds future. The old
saying is true, 'You can't fool mother nature".
Watch out what you type, or you may be found guilty of a thought crime.
If you haven't already, read the American Renaissance article I linked
to and see how totalitarian and Orwellian Canada and France or the
United Kingdom have become with regard to thought control. It's a
thought crime to communicate the belief that white lives matter in the
UK. Or should I say it is a literal felony crime to say white lives
matter with long prison sentences to make the point.
On 3/23/2024 2:49 PM, Nic wrote:
On 3/23/24 3:15 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/23/2024 11:44 AM, Lucas McCain wrote:Is there a plus side? Maybe those that are stupid enough to take such
I'm just curious, can anyone interpret what Ketanji Jackson Brown
means when she made this statement against the First Amendment in
the Supreme Court?
"I’ve heard you say a couple times that the government can post its
own speech. But, in my hypothetical, you know, kids, this is not
safe, don’t do it, is not going to get it done."
She presented a hypothetical where people are posting that kids
should accept the challenge of jumping out of windows at increasing
height. She then questions whether the government would be violating
the First Amendment if it tried to persuade the hosting tech
companies to take the challenge down. The respondents argued it would
(!!??) and the government can only declare to the general public that
the content should be take down, but not directly to the tech company
hosting the content.
That's nuts, and I think the Court will say so.
Good analysis of the Supreme Court case here:
https://www.amren.com/features/2024/03/the-last-stand-for-free-speech/
a challenge are not worthy for inclusion in the worlds future. The old
saying is true, 'You can't fool mother nature".
Watch out what you type, or you may be found guilty of a thought crime.
If you haven't already, read the American Renaissance article I linked
to and see how totalitarian and Orwellian Canada and France or the
United Kingdom have become with regard to thought control. It's a
thought crime to communicate the belief that white lives matter in the
UK. Or should I say it is a literal felony crime to say white lives
matter with long prison sentences to make the point.
On 3/23/2024 5:06 PM, Lucas McCain wrote:
On 3/23/2024 2:49 PM, Nic wrote:
On 3/23/24 3:15 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/23/2024 11:44 AM, Lucas McCain wrote:Is there a plus side? Maybe those that are stupid enough to take such
I'm just curious, can anyone interpret what Ketanji Jackson Brown
means when she made this statement against the First Amendment in
the Supreme Court?
"I’ve heard you say a couple times that the government can post its >>>>> own speech. But, in my hypothetical, you know, kids, this is not
safe, don’t do it, is not going to get it done."
She presented a hypothetical where people are posting that kids
should accept the challenge of jumping out of windows at increasing
height. She then questions whether the government would be violating
the First Amendment if it tried to persuade the hosting tech
companies to take the challenge down. The respondents argued it
would (!!??) and the government can only declare to the general
public that the content should be take down, but not directly to the
tech company hosting the content.
That's nuts, and I think the Court will say so.
Good analysis of the Supreme Court case here:
https://www.amren.com/features/2024/03/the-last-stand-for-free-speech/ >>>>
a challenge are not worthy for inclusion in the worlds future. The
old saying is true, 'You can't fool mother nature".
Watch out what you type, or you may be found guilty of a thought crime.
If you haven't already, read the American Renaissance article I linked
to and see how totalitarian and Orwellian Canada and France or the
United Kingdom have become with regard to thought control. It's a
thought crime to communicate the belief that white lives matter in the
UK. Or should I say it is a literal felony crime to say white lives
matter with long prison sentences to make the point.
You're free to espouse your view that Black lives don't matter, but
people are free to say that's a repugnant and to stop doing business
with you.
On 3/23/2024 4:06 PM, Lucas McCain wrote:
On 3/23/2024 2:49 PM, Nic wrote:
On 3/23/24 3:15 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/23/2024 11:44 AM, Lucas McCain wrote:Is there a plus side? Maybe those that are stupid enough to take such
I'm just curious, can anyone interpret what Ketanji Jackson Brown
means when she made this statement against the First Amendment in
the Supreme Court?
"I’ve heard you say a couple times that the government can post its >>>>> own speech. But, in my hypothetical, you know, kids, this is not
safe, don’t do it, is not going to get it done."
She presented a hypothetical where people are posting that kids
should accept the challenge of jumping out of windows at increasing
height. She then questions whether the government would be violating
the First Amendment if it tried to persuade the hosting tech
companies to take the challenge down. The respondents argued it
would (!!??) and the government can only declare to the general
public that the content should be take down, but not directly to the
tech company hosting the content.
That's nuts, and I think the Court will say so.
Good analysis of the Supreme Court case here:
https://www.amren.com/features/2024/03/the-last-stand-for-free-speech/ >>>>
a challenge are not worthy for inclusion in the worlds future. The
old saying is true, 'You can't fool mother nature".
Watch out what you type, or you may be found guilty of a thought crime.
If you haven't already, read the American Renaissance article I linked
to and see how totalitarian and Orwellian Canada and France or the
United Kingdom have become with regard to thought control. It's a
thought crime to communicate the belief that white lives matter in the
UK. Or should I say it is a literal felony crime to say white lives
matter with long prison sentences to make the point.
Although freedom of speech is more greatly protected in the USA, I find
it hard to believe that people in the UK are being slapped with long
prison terms for communicating that white lives matter. Citation?
On 3/23/2024 6:33 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/23/2024 4:06 PM, Lucas McCain wrote:
On 3/23/2024 2:49 PM, Nic wrote:
On 3/23/24 3:15 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/23/2024 11:44 AM, Lucas McCain wrote:Is there a plus side? Maybe those that are stupid enough to take
I'm just curious, can anyone interpret what Ketanji Jackson Brown
means when she made this statement against the First Amendment in
the Supreme Court?
"I’ve heard you say a couple times that the government can post
its own speech. But, in my hypothetical, you know, kids, this is
not safe, don’t do it, is not going to get it done."
She presented a hypothetical where people are posting that kids
should accept the challenge of jumping out of windows at increasing
height. She then questions whether the government would be
violating the First Amendment if it tried to persuade the hosting
tech companies to take the challenge down. The respondents argued
it would (!!??) and the government can only declare to the general
public that the content should be take down, but not directly to
the tech company hosting the content.
That's nuts, and I think the Court will say so.
Good analysis of the Supreme Court case here:
https://www.amren.com/features/2024/03/the-last-stand-for-free-speech/ >>>>>
such a challenge are not worthy for inclusion in the worlds future.
The old saying is true, 'You can't fool mother nature".
Watch out what you type, or you may be found guilty of a thought crime.
If you haven't already, read the American Renaissance article I
linked to and see how totalitarian and Orwellian Canada and France or
the United Kingdom have become with regard to thought control. It's
a thought crime to communicate the belief that white lives matter in
the UK. Or should I say it is a literal felony crime to say white
lives matter with long prison sentences to make the point.
Although freedom of speech is more greatly protected in the USA, I
find it hard to believe that people in the UK are being slapped with
long prison terms for communicating that white lives matter. Citation?
I provided a link which is the citation.
https://www.amren.com/features/2024/03/the-last-stand-for-free-speech/
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 365 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 26:16:10 |
| Calls: | 7,748 |
| Files: | 12,888 |
| Messages: | 5,740,260 |