2 ms·

So you're suggesting that prior restraint on constitutionally protected speech is justified because Pam Bondi, mouthpiece for the president, asserts that publis

So you're suggesting that prior restraint on constitutionally protected speech is justified because Pam Bondi, mouthpiece for the president, asserts that publishing publicly observable information about federal officers is designed to put them at risk from waves hands, and not that the risk, if there actually was one, should be dealt with from whatever she's waving her hands about? It's always funny when people are willing to toss the first amendment completely under the bus because of made-up risks but god help you if you suggest putting guardrails on the scope of the second amendment because of actual risks.

ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
Some people crave authoritarianism, and the feeling of safety it provides them (at the expense of others), and will repeat any words that make them feel better about doing so, even if the words are lies obvious even to themselves.
- imoverclocked 1y ago
  > Some people crave authoritarianism ... (at the expense of others) Yes, and even to the expense of themselves. The cult of personality is real.
imoverclocked 1y ago
> So you're suggesting that prior restraint on constitutionally protected speech is justified I have no idea how you got there but if you brought a case with a team of lawyers to get the apps re-instated based on the 1st amendment, I'd be happy about it. It would be interesting precedent too. However, my point is nothing about that. What should Apple do while following laws and being accused of hosting apps that endanger law enforcement?
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > What should Apple do while following laws and being accused of hosting apps that endanger law enforcement? Ask for a warrant. Same way they did to the FBI years ago.
scineram 1y ago
[flagged]