Judge Denies Robert F. Kennedy Jr’s Request to Halt YouTube Censorship
(www.breitbart.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (40)
sorted by:
Here is where it gets really bad.
Astonishing.
(X) Doubt
Absolute bullshit.
He's running for fucking president, you hack judge.
Completely fucking irrelevant. So fucking stupid. So, say they were a state actor. Now Congress may abridge speech, as long as not all government entities abridge speech? This is fucking peak retard, and I'm deeply offended. Dis bitch, man.
Death penalty. Fucking death penalty. To quote the Most Popular President Ever...“We’ve been patient, but our patience is wearing thin.”
Fuck public consideration. Fuck it hard.
Ah, yes, the Constitutional clause, "unless there's a flu going around."
Dude, I'm legitimately outraged at this nonsense. More so than usual. This is just...wow. Wow.
Oh, and of course she's a diversity hire. Fuck this regime, man.
Every woman judge is a diversity hire.
Well in that case she's a double diversity hire. At least. I wonder if she's gay or something too...
I hope he can appeal because that would be a terrible precedent.
If anything, that's an understatement. This is "Tree of Liberty is looking a little parched, ain't it?" territory.
Holy shit I'm mad.
if I remember correctly from my con law class in high school, the first amendment indeed does not cover lies. all they have to do is claim that he is lying or spreading false truths and they can censor whatever they want. it doesn't matter if the person they are censoring believes they are telling the truth, let alone that what they're saying is actually the truth. if they can convince a judge that you are lying, they have plausible deniability to revoke your first amendment rights.
fuck DC, fuck California, and fuck fed jannies
Actually, I believe that is incorrect. In 2012, United States vs Alvarez, the Supreme Court struck down the so-called Stolen Valor act (which made it illegal to lie about having received military medals), saying that it violated free speech provisions.
Can't recall if they ruled on anything else in the past decade that overturned that, but going off Alvarez you can lie and have it covered under free speech.
Where does it say in the constitution anything about not protecting lies? None of the constitutional "exceptions" were meant to be there.
Court precedent
That’s not constitutional.
Your "teacher" was woefully fucking misinformed to the point of treason.
I never said what I posted was a good thing, it's just how they operate and it's disgusting.
Those are NOT lies.