3 ms·
> Obviously if Meeks has something to say, he has a first amendment right to do so. Unless he's under a gag order, which wouldn't be at all surprising in a cas
by jaywalk 4y ago
> Obviously if Meeks has something to say, he has a first amendment right to do so.
Unless he's under a gag order, which wouldn't be at all surprising in a case like this.
> But you don't get to know what the FBI took from him.
Where did I suggest that?
- ajross 4y agoOK, I see what you're trying to say. This is begging the question. You don't get to cite "the public has a right to know" as evidence that "he's under a gag order" unless you assume that he is. There's no evidence of a gag order or any other enforcement action beyond the raid itself, nor does the linked article provide any.
- jaywalk 4y agoYou're making crazy leaps in logic. Nothing I said was meant to provide evidence that he's under a gag order. You said he has a right to speak up, I said that he may not. That's all.
- ajross 4y agoUh... no? It's not all. This started with you saying that the public had a right to know what happened at the raid. Then you brought up a hypothetical gag order. Am I really "crazy" to have assumed that you were citing the hypothetical gag order as a reason the public had a right to know about the raid? Maybe you could back out and explain this again?