Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I defend their first amendment rights even though their beliefs sickens me.
I also defend America's Second Amendment rights. If one or all of these people were to run into an errant bullet, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.
Oh, for crying out loud. Where did you twinks get the erroneous idea that inciting criminal activity has EVER been a protected First Amendment right? The First Amendment doesn't allow you to shout "Fire!" in a crowded building, ...
Honestly.
Holmes, writing for a unanimous majority, ruled that it was illegal to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I. Holmes argued this abridgment of free speech was permissible because it presented a "clear and present danger" to the government's recruitment efforts for the war. Holmes wrote:
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.
Holmes wrote of falsely shouting fire, because, of course, if there were a fire in a crowded theater, one may rightly indeed shout "Fire!"; one may, depending on the law in operation, even be obliged to. Falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, i.e. shouting "Fire!" when one believes there to be no fire in order to cause panic, was interpreted not to be protected by the First Amendment.
You are pathetic. You perhaps didn't bother to look, but 60% of those who voted no their speech should not be infringed are posters you consider right wing.Other than as a right wingnut fear tactic..
Does NAMBLA even exist anymore?
You are pathetic. You perhaps didn't bother to look, but 60% of those who voted no their speech should not be infringed are posters you consider right wing.Other than as a right wingnut fear tactic..
Does NAMBLA even exist anymore?
Moron.
You are pathetic. You perhaps didn't bother to look, but 60% of those who voted no their speech should not be infringed are posters you consider right wing.Other than as a right wingnut fear tactic..
Does NAMBLA even exist anymore?
Moron.
Wasn't meant to be an answer, moron. It addressed your pathetic need to look at everything with a partisan slant even when there is nothing partisan about it.You are pathetic. You perhaps didn't bother to look, but 60% of those who voted no their speech should not be infringed are posters you consider right wing.Other than as a right wingnut fear tactic..
Does NAMBLA even exist anymore?
Moron.
Not an answer moron
Since it hit the news outlets in the late 1980s with a few whacko's trying to get on TV, I have not seen any mention of NAMBLA except for fear mongering purposes.
I doubt if they ever had more than a thousand members.
Do they even exist anymore?
Yes. Hate speech, inciting violence, and death threats are currently prohibited. If NAMBLA is soliciting sex with minors, that is criminal. If their speech is confined to adults only websites, then they should be monitored by law enforcement. If they've committed no crime, they have nothing to fear. People who fuck children should accept that minor intrusion on their privacy. Either that, or be de-balled.
Everyone should be spied on at all times.
As far was watching the watchers? Who cares, it's for our own good.
that is true. the nsa/fbi/cia sure have done a great job of self policing. I trust them.
that is true. the nsa/fbi/cia sure have done a great job of self policing. I trust them.
Preach it brother. These people don't get enough credit. They deserve our praise and worship. They also deserve a pay increase for all they do protecting our freedoms. Good job guys. God Bless America.
