5 ms·
Got an example?
by gsibble 3y ago
Got an example?
- Kon-Peki 3y agoThe Covid-19 vaccine requirement for healthcare workers. Doughty issued the nationwide injunction, the Supreme Court overruled.
- infamouscow 3y agoThis comparison is laughably stark to say the least. A person must either be genuinely ignorant or literally deranged to believe SCOTUS would rule against the 1st amendment in a case like this. Especially given: 1. The current make up of the court 2. The court's current track of rulings aligned with the Constitution 3. It ignores the entire landmark ruling of New York Times Co. v. United States which describes in explicit detail about how the people's 1st amendment rights ALWAYS trump the government's interest, except under extraordinary circumstances where there's a very clear and imminent gave danger that cannot be prevented. The example given in the case was something being published that endangers troops actively deployed in combat AND with no means to redraw them. Anything less is grounds for rightfully being condemned, ridiculed, and mocked for being a tyrannical psychopath, because that's what the court will be saying.
- gsibble 3y agoHere here.
- intermerda 3y ago[flagged]
- ETH_start 3y agoFree Speech used to be a left wing cause, and still is in Europe. It's also strongly protected by the Constitution. >>The right wing of the court has time and again weaponized the first amendment to suit their political purposes and use it as a tool against political enemies of the Republican party. For all your references to arguments being "laughable", your characterization of defending free speech being a tool that can be "weaponized" to attack political enemies is ironic.
- remarkEon 3y ago>Laughable again, especially given that several justices have indicated overturning or at least weakening cases like Sullivan. I for one would actually like to see a return to Sullivan and a more narrow and focused ruling delivered. In a practical sense, the "actual malice" standard is basically impossible to prove in court unless you (somehow) find text or video recording of someone explicitly stating such, but even then it's hard. Moreover it exists as, basically, a mechanism to say anything you want about public figures with the intention of libeling them. I am as pro First Amendment as you will find on this website, and revisiting NYT v. Sullivan would be a good idea in order to settle the issue. Maybe being able to make up whatever you want and say it about public figures is actually what the Founders and SCOTUS intended. Jefferson would probably say yes. Franklin, likely not.
- gsibble 3y agoThat was a narrow 5-4 ruling. One overturned ruling hardly means this case has no merit. Do you have any counter-arguments to his 155 page ruling? And he was confirmed by the Senate 98-0.
- intermerda 3y agoYou asked for an example and you got one. I'm not sure what margins have to do with anything? If you're talking about those, he was nominated by a President who lost the popular vote by 3 million. > Do you have any counter-arguments to his 155 page ruling? This is dishonest and sealioning.