Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
  On 10/5/2024 at 4:32 PM, Willfully Horn said:

Fuck SCOTUS in its skunk ass for making misinformation protected political speech. Those members who supported the protection of misinformation need to be removed from the bench. Full stop.

Expand  

Just so you know, no court, including the Roberts court, has expressly held that false or mis- information is protected by the First Amendment.

The seminal case on the matter was decided in 1964, NY Times v. Sullivan, which makes the First Amendment a limitation on the ability to sue for defamation, which requires proof of falsity.  It is the source of the actual malice standard for public figures.  That was decided by the Warren Court, not what most would consider a conservative court.

The closest it has come is US v. Alvarez, with a plurality opinion including RBG and Sotomayor holding that the Stolen Valor Act was unconstitutional and rejecting the government's position that falsehoods are not protected by the First Amendment.  Alito, Thomas, and Scalia dissented, arguing that falsehoods actually were excluded from protection of the First Amendment.

So, be careful who you want removed from the bench, there.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
  On 10/5/2024 at 9:34 PM, TwiceHorn said:
Just so you know, no court, including the Roberts court, has expressly held that false or mis- information is protected by the First Amendment.
The seminal case on the matter was decided in 1964, NY Times v. Sullivan, which makes the First Amendment a limitation on the ability to sue for defamation, which requires proof of falsity.  It is the source of the actual malice standard for public figures.  That was decided by the Warren Court, not what most would consider a conservative court.
The closest it has come is US v. Alvarez, with a plurality opinion including RBG and Sotomayor holding that the Stolen Valor Act was unconstitutional and rejecting the government's position that falsehoods are not protected by the First Amendment.  Alito, Thomas, and Scalia dissented, arguing that falsehoods actually were excluded from protection of the First Amendment.
So, be careful who you want removed from the bench, there.
 


Nah, I’m pretty comfortable removing those fucksticks
  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted
  On 10/5/2024 at 9:34 PM, TwiceHorn said:

Just so you know, no court, including the Roberts court, has expressly held that false or mis- information is protected by the First Amendment.

The seminal case on the matter was decided in 1964, NY Times v. Sullivan, which makes the First Amendment a limitation on the ability to sue for defamation, which requires proof of falsity.  It is the source of the actual malice standard for public figures.  That was decided by the Warren Court, not what most would consider a conservative court.

The closest it has come is US v. Alvarez, with a plurality opinion including RBG and Sotomayor holding that the Stolen Valor Act was unconstitutional and rejecting the government's position that falsehoods are not protected by the First Amendment.  Alito, Thomas, and Scalia dissented, arguing that falsehoods actually were excluded from protection of the First Amendment.

So, be careful who you want removed from the bench, there.

 

Expand  

Thanks for your post. I’m not accustomed to memory glitches, and I believe I read about a ruling, in the last few years, that affirmed misinformation was protected political speech.

A quick search gets bogged down with a recent decision regarding social media, so I will take your word on the subject, at least until I have the time to track down whatever it was that sourced my memory. I will keep my mouth shut on the subject until then.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted

I perused the Conservative and Republican forums on Reddit. Holy cow. Talk about an echo chamber of delusion. They’ve structured these forums so that dissenting viewpoints that point out disinformation aren’t allowed. As a result, none of the ridiculous posts of disinformation are ever challenged. This reinforces their delusion even further. It’s really concerning. These people are living in a fantasy world. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 1
Posted (edited)
  On 10/5/2024 at 10:48 PM, Willfully Horn said:

Thanks for your post. I’m not accustomed to memory glitches, and I believe I read about a ruling, in the last few years, that affirmed misinformation was protected political speech.

A quick search gets bogged down with a recent decision regarding social media, so I will take your word on the subject, at least until I have the time to track down whatever it was that sourced my memory. I will keep my mouth shut on the subject until then.

Expand  

It's one of those things that doesn't quite line up.  Thomas' most fervent wish is to overrule Sullivan. And that would probably most squarely remove 1A protection from false or mis- information. 

The most recent decisions of the Roberts court actually favor regulation of misinformation, in result if not reasoning. 

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
  On 10/5/2024 at 10:45 PM, C-Man said:

 


Nah, I’m pretty comfortable removing those fucksticks

 

Expand  

What he was arguing for was the opposite. The fucksticks actually argued that falsehoods weren't protected. 

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Like 1
Posted
  On 10/5/2024 at 10:57 PM, TheStoicPaisano said:

Struggle with this guy’s cadence even when he stumbles on a good point. This is not one of those times.

 

Expand  

I reiterate my position that Teslas are MAGA hats on wheels. I just assume the driver is a Trumper when I see one these days.

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
  On 10/6/2024 at 2:19 AM, royiv said:
I reiterate my position that Teslas are MAGA hats on wheels. I just assume the driver is a Trumper when I see one these days.

In the past two days, I’ve had a Tesla turn the wrong way down a one way street and defiantly drive right at me as I honked at him, and another make a u-turn in the middle of the road, just whipping around and fuckig over people in both direction. So, yes, narcissist assholes.
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Rage+1 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
  On 10/5/2024 at 11:59 PM, TwiceHorn said:

What he was arguing for was the opposite. The fucksticks actually argued that falsehoods weren't protected. 

Expand  

And I’m arguing that despite them being on the right side on that particular ruling, I’d like all three of them thrown out of the Court.

  • Like 1
Posted
  On 10/6/2024 at 2:19 AM, royiv said:

I reiterate my position that Teslas are MAGA hats on wheels. I just assume the driver is a Trumper when I see one these days.

Expand  

My wife drives one. She loves it but I tell her this every day. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
  On 10/6/2024 at 6:43 PM, 956 Worldwide said:

Periodic reminder that the GOP actively breaks government so it can run on a platform of broken government. They are very excited to delay and obstruct disaster relief to a swing state in October so they blame the administration.
 

 

Expand  

can Biden issue an executive order or is there some "back pocket" work-around here?

Posted
  On 10/6/2024 at 7:06 PM, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

can Biden issue an executive order or is there some "back pocket" work-around here?

Expand  

Executive can only redirect funds that have already been allocated (which it is doing); it cannot spend funds that Congress has not voted on. You need a supplemental, this is the same movie we saw with Ukraine funding last year.  
 

The GOP will eventually vote one through but they want to ride out the current (Elon-driven) wave of “the gub’mint ain’t there for y’all” and then have headlines on money coming closer to Election Day. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Rage+1 3
Posted (edited)
  On 10/6/2024 at 7:12 PM, 956 Worldwide said:

Executive can only redirect funds that have already been allocated (which it is doing); it cannot spend funds that Congress has not voted on. You need a supplemental, this is the same movie we saw with Ukraine funding last year.  
 

The GOP will eventually vote one through but they want to ride out the current (Elon-driven) wave of “the gub’mint ain’t there for y’all” and then have headlines on money coming closer to Election Day. 

Expand  

I hope the people trying to collect the splinters of their lives have a second to take notice of the GOP efforts to obstruct relief. There's that h-word again

Edited by Longhorn_Fan68
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 4
Posted
  On 10/6/2024 at 7:18 PM, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

I hope the people trying to collect the splinters of their lives have a second to take notice of the GOP efforts to obstruct relief. There's that h-word again

Expand  

This is not a comment on what we should do, because helping Americans recover from a disaster that wrecks lives is the right thing to do no matter who the Americans are. 
 

Appalachia is the largest per capita recipient of federal largesse and they consistently vote red.  This is not an area prone to reflection. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 5
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
  On 10/6/2024 at 9:52 PM, Nice Guy Eddie said:

How disgusting that an ex-military member gives a Purple Heart to a draft dodger. Even if Trump can’t stop the offer, a decent would refuse to take that from a vet. 

Expand  

Pretty much anyone not named Trump would have said "No, no, I can't accept this.  You earned it, I did not."

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted

I only lived on the gulf side of Florida for 8 years. I remember many storms heading that direction from Mexico across the gulf. Not all hurricanes obviously, but same theory.

BTW, my old stomping grounds are in the middle of the current projection. They are already  dealing with enough from the storm surge from the last one. This one could get really bad in those areas.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

In 2020, Pinellas County went 49/49 Trump/Biden, and Hillsborough County went 46/52.  That covers most of the Tampa vote.  Sure, Biden's administration is steering hurricanes into a majority-Biden metro area.  Gotcha.

Posted
  On 10/7/2024 at 1:22 PM, Pancho said:

image.thumb.png.98d2576c984364e11b3dcead39d535ab.png

Expand  

What’s funny/not funny/terrifying is what we see has an explanation.  An explanation rooted in science and supported by empirical evidence.  Global warming/climate change has been warned about and laughed off for decades now.

But some people have gone so far up the river Colonel Kurtz style, they can’t see what’s happening in our changing climate and pause for a moment of reflection: what if the scientists are right?  No, it’s easier for them to invent a reality where the US government has weaponized the weather against its citizens.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 3
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted (edited)
  On 10/6/2024 at 7:12 PM, 956 Worldwide said:

Executive can only redirect funds that have already been allocated (which it is doing); it cannot spend funds that Congress has not voted on. You need a supplemental, this is the same movie we saw with Ukraine funding last year.  
 

The GOP will eventually vote one through but they want to ride out the current (Elon-driven) wave of “the gub’mint ain’t there for y’all” and then have headlines on money coming closer to Election Day. 

Expand  

Maybe it's just me, but  lately I've been seeing an awful lot of "keep the gubment out of ar lives!!!" types bitching about gubment aid taking too long. 

Edited by Pescado_Rojo
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Haha 2
  • Rage+1 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1


×
×
  • Create New...