I saw them. He told people to nail the hotel door shut and burn it down, over an event that wasn't even in the UK.
That's why. Because that would have killed hundreds of people. Not even in America would you get away with what he said.
All women lie all of the time, I have absolutely no reason to believe the so-called victim. Especially after Adolescence, the grooming gang lie, Sarah Everard, three different kinds of systemic justice system manipulation in their favor, the continued political existence of Jess Phillips...
Someone needs to nail you into a hotel in Dresden and burn it down.
Guess what, in a proper country you're allowed to say that without going to prison.
How about we punish the people who actually burn the hotel down rather than the people who tweet about it.
So, why does society that favors women and is for women run by women not believe all victims? Are you saying the matrons of our society are actually fair and just? So, you love women running things since they get it right how you want it?
You can say that. It's not actionable. I'm anonymous, in theory, and the logistics of such an act are ridiculous.
What he did named specific targets, making it actionable. The court was right. The "migrant hotels" are not anonymous, their location is publicly known.
Your argument ironically is probably why the woman lost. Every so often the system has to at least pretend there's justice. It gives that veneer of legitimacy.
Not even in America would you get away with saying that
You have repeatedly issued explicit calls on this forum within the past two weeks for stormfags to be killed. Are you acknowledging that this is unlawful, even in the United States?
That's completely different. If you jailed every person who said kill Nazis, you wouldn't have many people left. It's not like it's feasible to track down the retarded stormfaggots and execute them.
Not even in America would you get away with what he said.
Lies again.
The governing rule: Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
The First Amendment allows the government to punish advocacy of violence only if all three are true:
1. Intent – The speaker intends to incite or produce lawless action
2. Imminence – The lawless action is imminent (about to happen, not abstract or someday)
3. Likelihood – The speech is likely to actually cause that imminent lawless action
This is often summarized as “imminent lawless action”, not just “violence” in the abstract.
I saw them. He told people to nail the hotel door shut and burn it down, over an event that wasn't even in the UK.
That's why. Because that would have killed hundreds of people. Not even in America would you get away with what he said.
All women lie all of the time, I have absolutely no reason to believe the so-called victim. Especially after Adolescence, the grooming gang lie, Sarah Everard, three different kinds of systemic justice system manipulation in their favor, the continued political existence of Jess Phillips...
Someone needs to nail you into a hotel in Dresden and burn it down.
Guess what, in a proper country you're allowed to say that without going to prison.
How about we punish the people who actually burn the hotel down rather than the people who tweet about it.
So, why does society that favors women and is for women run by women not believe all victims? Are you saying the matrons of our society are actually fair and just? So, you love women running things since they get it right how you want it?
You can say that. It's not actionable. I'm anonymous, in theory, and the logistics of such an act are ridiculous.
What he did named specific targets, making it actionable. The court was right. The "migrant hotels" are not anonymous, their location is publicly known.
Your argument ironically is probably why the woman lost. Every so often the system has to at least pretend there's justice. It gives that veneer of legitimacy.
You have repeatedly issued explicit calls on this forum within the past two weeks for stormfags to be killed. Are you acknowledging that this is unlawful, even in the United States?
That's completely different. If you jailed every person who said kill Nazis, you wouldn't have many people left. It's not like it's feasible to track down the retarded stormfaggots and execute them.
That would not have killed one single people.
10/10 paid shill grammar.
Whoosh.
Don't outsource your shilling, Project 2025. Your credibility is already near zero.
Lies again.
The governing rule: Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
The First Amendment allows the government to punish advocacy of violence only if all three are true: 1. Intent – The speaker intends to incite or produce lawless action 2. Imminence – The lawless action is imminent (about to happen, not abstract or someday) 3. Likelihood – The speech is likely to actually cause that imminent lawless action
This is often summarized as “imminent lawless action”, not just “violence” in the abstract.
All of those things apply to what he said.
Thanks for, once again, openly admitting you’re a sockpuppet account, in direct violation of all rules.