you're so stupid
Such as?
"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 pe ion the Government for a redress of grievances."
See the underscore?
I agree from strict interpretation perspective. But the SC has not been strict about it.
It's not my fault you got called out for making up again.
Ain't you a selfproclaimed libertarian, Spurts? How you reconcile that with seeking government intervention into private companies?
Exceptions to the 1st Amendment are exceptionally narrow and limited, and normally follow a competing interest, like national security. (ie: yelling bomb in a public place).
Your entire post was a complete lie.
They've applied free speech to plenty of scenarios that have nothing to do with Congress or government. This is no secret.
If it's no secret, enlighten us. List them. Don't give me the ole 'this is known' and 'common sense'. Just list them.
The only other scenario I can recall is temporary suspension of some of those protections at the border, again, due to national security.
This is a good rundown on this topic, BTW:
https://corporate.findlaw.com/law-li...revisited.html
And i really mean good luck with that. I want to see what he's talking about for more lolz.
And i really mean good luck with that. I want to see what he's talking about for more lolz.derp running to his closet full of alts whenever he feels threatened.
The first amendment prohibited Congress from abridging the free speech of citizenry. It did not state that a lack of decorum among professionals could thusly be not enforced.
Lol give an example of a court case then, derp
Calm down, cuck.
You haven't cited a single case, derp.
Let's see them.
Stalling
We're mocking you, derp.
Still not one citation....
IOW, The first amendment doesn't protect arrangements between 'professionals' or private parties, to be more concise. Only regulates Congress and Congress-created ins utions (since Congress is the only branch of government that can create laws), which fall under the same umbrella.
Arrangements between private parties fall into contract law, and such arrangements stipulate what can and cannot be done. If Twitter would want to extend 1st-amendment-like protections to it's users, they can do so in their Terms of Service. They do not, AFAIK. Then again, that has nothing to do with cons utional protections, just as long as they don't run into other cons utionally protected rights or laws that don't specifically limit the government (ie: discrimination by race, color, origin, etc).
That's why I mentioned that if you want government to regulate free speech between private parties, a law would need to be passed by Congress to do that. However, it's a BAD IDEA (tm), if you consider the slippery slope it creates. Today it might help Woods sue Twitter, but tomorrow, it might be used by the next 'Democrat facist' president to shut down opposing voices.
Now avoid backing up your argument some more.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote