I'm puzzled as to how someone thinks removing the First Amendment, so the police can arrest people for retweeting unpleasant tweets or spreading "disinformation", will work in our society.
Who gets to decide? Do we have a trial decided by our peers? Is there some sort of Fact Tribunal, perhaps run by the staff of The New York Times, that …
I'm puzzled as to how someone thinks removing the First Amendment, so the police can arrest people for retweeting unpleasant tweets or spreading "disinformation", will work in our society.
Who gets to decide? Do we have a trial decided by our peers? Is there some sort of Fact Tribunal, perhaps run by the staff of The New York Times, that determines whether a statement is prosecuted? Maybe we can spend some serious money and get Nicolas Maduro himself to decide what's protected speech and what isn't?
The UK is quickly turning into a third-world country. Not because of who lives there, by the way. But because it's being governed incompetently. The Tories never wanted Brexit, so they alienated their base. Labour was able to win easily, without having to appeal to moderates in any way whatsoever. They're dismantling industry and energy costs are unaffordable for the middle class. I don't think we want to emulate them and tear up our Constitution.
Instead, we should thank the UK for making our Constitution possible in the first place, and continually reminding us why the freedoms outlined in the Constitution are so important.
But many do want to tear up our constitution or at least modify it in ways that would substantially water down the first and second amendments and without doing so by amendments ( as required by the Constitution ). As for who gets to decide I like to ask those who favor limits on speech if they would allow Trump if elected to have the same powers in this regard as they would give to Kamala. There should be little doubt that Mary Poppins would pop back into the picture if the Dems get full power.
I'm puzzled as to how someone thinks removing the First Amendment, so the police can arrest people for retweeting unpleasant tweets or spreading "disinformation", will work in our society.
Who gets to decide? Do we have a trial decided by our peers? Is there some sort of Fact Tribunal, perhaps run by the staff of The New York Times, that determines whether a statement is prosecuted? Maybe we can spend some serious money and get Nicolas Maduro himself to decide what's protected speech and what isn't?
The UK is quickly turning into a third-world country. Not because of who lives there, by the way. But because it's being governed incompetently. The Tories never wanted Brexit, so they alienated their base. Labour was able to win easily, without having to appeal to moderates in any way whatsoever. They're dismantling industry and energy costs are unaffordable for the middle class. I don't think we want to emulate them and tear up our Constitution.
Instead, we should thank the UK for making our Constitution possible in the first place, and continually reminding us why the freedoms outlined in the Constitution are so important.
But many do want to tear up our constitution or at least modify it in ways that would substantially water down the first and second amendments and without doing so by amendments ( as required by the Constitution ). As for who gets to decide I like to ask those who favor limits on speech if they would allow Trump if elected to have the same powers in this regard as they would give to Kamala. There should be little doubt that Mary Poppins would pop back into the picture if the Dems get full power.