Sarah Silverman
@SarahKSilverman
·
6h
-The people take to the streets, he militarizes the streets
-American youth speak out against him on on TikTok, he bans TikTok
-People register to vote, he delays the election
//////////////////
before someone loses their schit, he hasn't delayed the election
per se
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
I'm interested to see how a TikTok ban would work. It's not as easy to ban an app in the US as it is in India.
Apple could kill it by pressing a button. Google is a different story since thier system isn’t as closed off like apples and you can side load apps onto thier phones.Originally Posted by striker42
It would require the cooperation of private actors in your scenario. A president has some powers he could use to coerce them but Im not sure he can sign an order and cut off access to the app like other countries can.
Literally burning books now...
Everyone needs to watch this. This should scare the **** out of everyone.
As we know this isn't approved speech
Lol
"For there is always light, if only we are brave enough to see it. If only we are brave enough to be it." Amanda Gorman
"When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross"
I’m never getting that 14 minutes back
"For there is always light, if only we are brave enough to see it. If only we are brave enough to be it." Amanda Gorman
"When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross"
Good point
I'm curious why the district allows some political speech but not others.
It's so weird I just can't figure it out what may be different
And now the other way...
I think it turns on the distinction between graffiti and a mural that has received a permit.
There is a serious issue involved. But I don't think it is a question of free speech. The courts have made clear graffiti is not protected by the first amendment.
The issue is whether government should permit or commission murals with political content. This is closer in spirit to the issue of Confederate statues. Should government give permission or even commission such statues? Same question can be asked about whether government should permit or commission murals that celebrate BLM.
"I am a victim, I will tell you. I am a victim."
"I am your retribution."
https://nypost.com/2020/08/03/de-bla...mpression=true
City officials ignored their own application process for public art projects to paint Black Lives Matter murals around the five boroughs, in order to mark an important moment in history, Mayor Bill de Blasio said as his administration faces claims of First Amendment violations for refusing to green-light other proposals.
------
What bull**** excuse do you have now?
Natural Immunity Croc
Fake news. Little thethe falls for it yet again.
"Donald Trump will serve a second term as president of the United States.
It’s over."
Little Thethe Nov 19, 2020.
Selective enforcement does raise first amendment questions. Let's say you have a local church marching down the street on Monday protesting abortion. No permit, just a group of people marching on a public street. They are not hindered by police at all. In fact, police block off roads to ensure they can march safely.
On Tuesday, a group of atheists decide to march down the same street to protest churches getting involved in political matters. They are all immediately stopped by police and ticketed for jaywalking.
The tickets given to the atheist group members are completely legitimate in that the people were jaywalking. However, what's the difference between the atheist group and the local church? The only difference is content of speech. By enforcement you've turned what is a neutral law into a content based regulation. This is problematic and something the courts are going to have to deal with.
I used the atheist vs local church protesting abortion to show it doesn't matter which side of the political fence you're on. Selective enforcement of laws based on content of speech is problematic.
Forcing people to apply for things is a common trick by politicians. Quite frankly if you have to ask for permission to protest you arent protesting. You are playing make believe while the government points and laughs at how gullible you are. Peaceful protest is called voting.
My favorite current example of abuse of the application process is the DoJ refusing to accept any applications for growing medical marijuana for research purposes. Congress legislated that research be expanded. Sessions spent his whole tenure "reviewing" these applications. Barr has been in the position over a year and STILL reviewing the applications.
"Donald Trump will serve a second term as president of the United States.
It’s over."
Little Thethe Nov 19, 2020.
For something like a protest, the permit process is supposed to be very quick and easy with little discretion. Courts have allowed permitting based on the government raising concerns like ensuring proper police presence, ensuring appropriate streets are shut down and traffic rerouted, alert police of the occurrence in case there are calls from concerned citizens, etc.
In practice, it's quite different. Governments tend to play around with groups they don't like. They'll get shuffled back and forth between departments, be told that Karen is out on leave and she's the only one that can process through the permits, have their paperwork lost, be given a permit but then be harassed by police at every step, etc. It's all stuff that's really difficult to base a suit on but it's definitely used to discriminate against viewpoints.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote