3 ms·

Yeah, what could go wrong with courts analyzing for subtext and divining intent of free speech to see if secret crimes were being committed? I continue to be st

• skulk 6y ago
  > secret crime Sorry, I forgot 18 U.S. Code § 2383 hasn't been declassified yet. [/snark] It's not clear at all what your point is. Are you a freedom of speech absolutist? Do you not believe in due process?
  • NE2z2T9qi 6y ago
    My point is that I’m astounded by the non-stop hypocrisy of people who are desperate to censor speech... and the fact that they’re so nakedly biased means that we should not allow them to censor political speech. There were deadly riots over the summer with billions of dollars in damage. Numerous federal buildings were attacked while the media and politicians spurred them on or gave them cover as “peaceful protestors”. A church across from the White House was burned down and the only reason they didn’t invade the White House is almost certainly because the security was more competent, not because the rioters wouldn’t have done it. Today we had protestors and mild rioting (broken windows and doors, but no fires, no major damage) and the same media which called the summer riots “peaceful” somehow decided that people taking selfies in Nancy Pelosi’s office were “violent insurrectionists” and that Trump needed to be banned from communicating.