3 ms·
Rep. Smith defended the language saying it was an important piece of the legislation. Without, it had no teeth. He also said he cannot make guarantees that th
by TomatoTomato 15y ago
Rep. Smith defended the language saying it was an important piece of the legislation. Without, it had no teeth.
He also said he cannot make guarantees that this section will not limit global free speech.
- walru 15y agoThen how, in his right mind, is he pushing for this legislation to go through as written? This is a rhetorical question, sadly we already know the answer.
- tuppy 15y agoDon't these guys take an oath to uphold the Constitution when they are sworn into office? How is attempting to pass a law to subvert free speech not breaking what they swore to protect?
- forensic 15y agoPoliticians and most judges, and almost all lawyers, are paid specifically to come up with plausible sounding reasons why nothing violates the constitution. It's a prestigious line of work, with a long and glorious tradition.