3 free speech cases before SCOTUS

[22lcidw]

FBI doesn’t have the authority to kick anyone off social media either.

Trump, as president, is the head of the FBI. Is he not? Everything you say about the FBI goes equally (or even more so) with the president.

Trump found out the real unelected power in D.C.

 

[WEATHER53]

Liberals fear and are very resentful toward the productive and powerful so in their fits of pique, they want us silenced.

 

[Rogue AI]

FBI doesn’t have the authority to kick anyone off social media either.

Trump, as president, is the head of the FBI. Is he not? Everything you say about the FBI goes equally (or even more so) with the president.

They have the authority to investigate the illegal drug trade, child porn, and a slew other things they conveniently ignore. If it was a matter of opinion a non-law enforcement agency would suffice, like HHS for alleged covid misinformation, or any of the hundreds of other useless government agencies. Biden chose an agency that would get compliance simply because nobody wants FBI problems. The threat is always implied with those corrupt hacks.

 

[Marener]

They have the authority to investigate the illegal drug trade, child porn, and a slew other things they conveniently ignore. If it was a matter of opinion a non-law enforcement agency would suffice, like HHS for alleged covid misinformation, or any of the hundreds of other useless government agencies. Biden chose an agency that would get compliance simply because nobody wants FBI problems. The threat is always implied with those corrupt hacks.

And everything you said can also be said about the president, given they are the chief executive.

Yet you claim there's no "implied" thread when it comes from the president despite the fact that the president is considerably more powerful than the FBI.

 

[Rogue AI]

And everything you said can also be said about the president, given they are the chief executive.

Yet you claim there's no "implied" thread when it comes from the president despite the fact that the president is considerably more powerful than the FBI.

Nonsense, the president can't get a search warrant to search your home, the FBI can. The president's power is in forming and enacting his agenda, individually he no threat. The fact Biden used an agency people fear should tell you something, should, clearly you refuse to see it.

 

[Marener]

Nonsense, the president can't get a search warrant to search your home, the FBI can. The president's power is in forming and enacting his agenda, individually he no threat. The fact Biden used an agency people fear should tell you something, should, clearly you refuse to see it.

Maybe you haven't heard about this one guy called Nixon.

 

[Crepitus]

Go ahead and look the other way that is what you do best.

I'm not doing that. I'm already aware that the corrupt SC(r)OTUS is about to bend the first amendment and make it apply to things the founders never intended.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

thehill.com

the demrats in DC trying set up a one party system with little and ineffective political opposition.

Turley's academic style probably won't be tackled by the anti-free speech Marxists on the board even if they accept Turley as a credible source which most won't.

But the thesis he presents in the article is fascinating. And I agree that the Biden administration has been the most anti-free speech regime in American history even surpassing that of Obama's administration that was terrible in that regard.

When I was in college I couldn't tell you the political leanings of a single one of my professors because they taught and lectured on concepts, principle, cause and effect.. We had all manner of speakers who came to our campus and they ranged the entire spectrum from Marxist communists to John Birchers and everything in between in the political spectrum plus many other topics of science, religion, trends, history, philosophy etc. etc.

It would never have occurred to any of us to any of us to be rude or uncivil or unkind to any of the speakers and I'm sure the retribution would have been swift and certain had we done that. There would often be a Q&A following the speech. with questions answered respectfully. No boos no matter how outrageous the answer. Often our professors would assign us to attend a speech and then write our impressions and/or discuss the topics in class. Certainly we were considered adults and sufficiently mature to handle complicated subject matter, even that with which we strongly disagreed.

To assume that ANY of us were too fragile to hear anything spoken on stage or that we were incapable of using logic and reason to evaluate what we heard would have been absurd. There was no such thing as "hate speech" but only good and bad manners and good manners were encouraged by all. And not a single one of us that I know of grew up and became a crazy lunatic or danger to society.

How is it we have come so far from then to now? I cannot believe it is because of evolving understanding and mores. I rather think the efforts to control the message, silence the dissenters, punish the heretics, etc. are rooted in more sinister political ambitions.

And I hope and pray SCOTUS's rulings will bring us back closer to logic, reason, common sense.