4 ms·
You obviously have a poor understanding of the law, because intent matters. Flagging content with the intention of having it censored or removed would certainly
by tus666 4y ago
You obviously have a poor understanding of the law, because intent matters. Flagging content with the intention of having it censored or removed would certainly fall foul of the constitution.
- dredmorbius 4y agoIt seems you didn't understand my question, as that's not at all what I'd said, nor asked. Do you in fact have a precedential case citation?
- tus666 4y agoDo I need one to have an opinion on the law or what might result? No I don't.
- dredmorbius 4y agoIs it truly so difficult to answer a simple yes or no question?
- tus666 4y agoIt's not a real question as it based on a false assumption and a straw-man analogy. I never claimed my opinion was based on a specific case so I have nothing to defend against.
- dredmorbius 4y agoI can assure you that it was a question born of curiousity as to whether or not you had any basis in fact or legal precedent for your claim. It's overwhelmingly apparent you don't. I'm satisfied by your response to that regard. Good chatting with you.
- tus666 4y agoThere are facts beyond specific legal precedent, if such a concept is within your limited cognitive grasp.