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.
thehill.com
Free speech hangs in the balance in 3 Supreme Court cases
Liberal justices long acted as the bulwark for free speech on the court. They are now viewed as the weakest link.
the demrats in DC trying set up a one party system with little and ineffective political opposition.
Dude, that's an Op/Ed from Turley, a faux niwz shill and total sell out who is pushing a book.Free speech hangs in the balance in 3 Supreme Court cases
Liberal justices long acted as the bulwark for free speech on the court. They are now viewed as the weakest link.
the demrats in DC trying set up a one party system with little and ineffective political opposition.
Go ahead and look the other way that is what you do best.Dude, that's an Op/Ed from Turley, a faux niwz shill and total sell out who is pushing a book.
Get back to me when you've got something real.
The linked article is a lie – riddled with false statements and disinformation.Free speech hangs in the balance in 3 Supreme Court cases
Liberal justices long acted as the bulwark for free speech on the court. They are now viewed as the weakest link.
the demrats in DC trying set up a one party system with little and ineffective political opposition.
Wrong, then again you usually are. The left wants little or weak political opposition and are using the federal government as their political hammer.The linked article is a lie – riddled with false statements and disinformation.
We are not living in an “anti-free speech period.”
With regard to Murthy v. Missouri, government notifying social media entities about disinformation campaigns is neither ‘coercion’ nor does it violate the First Amendment.Wrong, then again you usually are. The left wants little or weak political opposition and are using the federal government as their political hammer.
In your dreams maybe, its nothing more than the fed being political muscle for the left.With regard to Murthy v. Missouri, government notifying social media entities about disinformation campaigns is neither ‘coercion’ nor does it violate the First Amendment.
Social media entities remain at liberty to accommodate disinformation and are not subject to punitive measures by government if they do.
Yeah sure, tell that to the dozens of speakers chased, harassed, and even assaulted by whiny liberals across the country. Your cancel culture is all about silencing anything you don't want to hear.The linked article is a lie – riddled with false statements and disinformation.
We are not living in an “anti-free speech period.”
An interesting topic, but the op ed link ruined the thread. The justices questioning in the social media cases was interesting, and illuminating in that Alito does seem to live in a bubbleFree speech hangs in the balance in 3 Supreme Court cases
Liberal justices long acted as the bulwark for free speech on the court. They are now viewed as the weakest link.
the demrats in DC trying set up a one party system with little and ineffective political opposition.
If Trump is president and says “Alex Acosta is a terrible journalist and he should be fired because his articles are all terrible”, would that be a first amendment violation?Free speech hangs in the balance in 3 Supreme Court cases
Liberal justices long acted as the bulwark for free speech on the court. They are now viewed as the weakest link.
the demrats in DC trying set up a one party system with little and ineffective political opposition.
No, that's an opinion.If Trump is president and says “Alex Acosta is a terrible journalist and he should be fired because his articles are all terrible”, would that be a first amendment violation?
No man has put up with the accusations, attacks, viciousness and smears than Donald Trump. our entertainment industry is weaponized against Republicans as it is. Conservatism is not on the table yet. Populism is and that is only a name for reigning in the excesses of all of the Progressive Socialist Agendas that are really destroying us. Carville told you the reason the other day. It is real and if we do not change somewhat that will end with primal thinking taking over for surviving.If Trump is president and says “Alex Acosta is a terrible journalist and he should be fired because his articles are all terrible”, would that be a first amendment violation?
How is that different than the FBI telling Facebook they think a poster is spreading disinformation?No, that's an opinion.
The FBI wasn't voicing their opinions, they received 'reports' from third party 'researchers' and then using the full force of the government 'asked' private industries to censor the citizens. Such blatant corruption and abuse of power can also be found in third world countries. Is that the real reason for open borders? Flood the country with illiterate peasants who won't question abuses?How is that different than the FBI telling Facebook they think a poster is spreading disinformation?
What do you mean by “using the full force of the government”?The FBI wasn't voicing their opinions, they received 'reports' from third party 'researchers' and then using the full force of the government 'asked' private industries to censor the citizens. Such blatant corruption and abuse of power can also be found in third world countries. Is that the real reason for open borders? Flood the country with illiterate peasants who won't question abuses?
The full force of the government is the implied threat in the powers they have. It's the expectation that there are negative consequences for refusing their 'advice'. Nobody believes the government asks, they demand.What do you mean by “using the full force of the government”?
There were no threats of any kind. No coercion. No mandates that any private industry do anything, proven by the fact that those private industries often didn’t do anything.
They merely gave their opinion.
Couldn’t you say there were implied threats from Trump talking about firing journalists?The full force of the government is the implied threat in the powers they have. It's the expectation that there are negative consequences for refusing their 'advice'. Nobody believes the government asks, they demand.
No, Trump does not have authority to have 'journalists' fired. He didn't even have any excluded from the press corps or in fact take any type of punitive action.Couldn’t you say there were implied threats from Trump talking about firing journalists?
You said it was just an opinion. Maybe its a demand too?
FBI doesn’t have the authority to kick anyone off social media either.No, Trump does not have authority to have 'journalists' fired. He didn't even have any excluded from the press corps or in fact take any type of punitive action.
The FBI on the other hand is not known for simply allowing folks to shrug them off. Just the people at Ruby Ridge or Waco.
