You should’ve thought that through a little better, Samson. Some rewording and you’ll be a little closer to what you’re actually trying to say.
Am I wrong or haven’t you argued that a very narrow ruling about an open air California mall having to let people peacefully solicit or use their speech in the common areas that has been walked back every time it is revisited to mean that YouTube should be forced to carry Infowars?
Or was that someone else?
Yes, you are wrong.
Yes, you are wrong.
Really?
Not even in this thread?
Some good news for the day . His brand of conspiracy mongering has become a real problem, politically and culturally. If he wants to keep spewing his vomit, let him. But these platforms don’t have to let him do it in their space. Hopefully other companies will follow suit (Facebook and YT in particular), but i’ll take what I can get. I’m sure Ted Cruz will be along shortly to tell everyone how unfair this decision is.
Nope. Missing quite a bit of nuance. They can ban him, they just have to give up immunity from liability as a non-publisher if they are going to exercise editorial control, like a publisher.
No they aren’t, they are telling you that you can make up your own mind and live as you see fit.
And once again they were expressly excluded at the time the 14th was drafted, they were not US citizens an neither were their children. It took an act of congress to change that.
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/on-this-day-in-1924-all-indians-made-united-states-citizens/
Full citizenship rights were not conferred on Indians until 1924.
They are also subjects of a foreign state and under their jurisdiction as are their children born in the US.
yeah, and the Taliban was recognized as the legitimate leader of Afg.
You are wrong. Stop now.
Nope. Missing quite a bit of nuance. They can ban him, they just have to give up immunity from liability as a non-publisher if they are going to exercise editorial control, like a publisher.
That is no where near what you were arguing in that thread.
Glad to see that there is evolution.
No, that’s exactly what I was arguing. Some of my posts from that thread
Meh, free speech is a prohibition against government suppressing speech, not twitter.
Umm, his speech has been infringed upon, just not unconstitutionally.
And when I was talking about Pruneyard, that was in reference to state constitutions which in some cases have much broader speech protection than the US constitution. Nowhere in that thread did I intimate my understanding of the US constitution meant youtube could not ban Alex Jones. Which is not to say there can be no legislative action prohibiting it or removing their protection from liability as a content aggregator as opposed to a publisher.
Keep reading.
It changes.
Nope, reviewed the whole thread and every post I made, nowhere did I assert the first amendment of the US constitution prohibited it.
And once again they were expressly excluded at the time the 14th was drafted, they were not US citizens an neither were their children. It took an act of congress to change that.
That only is relevant to Indians on Indian land. You lack a basic understanding of the subject.
No it wasn’t, it didn’t specify those on the reservations, that came later with the “Indians Not Taxed” language in subsequent legislation.
Well no, the Indians were singled out for a reason, because they were a people who were in the country who didn’t owe exclusive allegiance to the US. They were in essence foreign nationals born on US soil who owed allegiance to their tribes and not the US government. IE they were not under the complete political jurisdiction of the US.
Well no, the Indians were singled out for a reason, because they were a people who were in the country who didn’t owe exclusive allegiance to the US. They were in essence foreign nationals born on US soil who owed allegiance to their tribes and not the US government. IE they were not under the complete political jurisdiction of the US.
Only when they were residing on their lands. Indians residing on US soil apart from their tribe were under our complete jurisdiction. Saying otherwise is complete gibberish, especially within the context of Trumbull’s quotes.
You do realize that dog your chasing is your own tail, right? lol
And yet you have, all day long.
If the child is born in the United States the child is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and is therefore a citizen of the United States. Period. It doesn’t matter if the child’s parents were born on the ■■■■■■■ moon and snuck into the country on a ■■■■■■■ unicorn
Best sentence Ive read all day…
Abuse of power” is one of those terms that define themselves. [/quote]
What a load of BS.
[quote=“TheDoctorIsIn, post:369, topic:165480, full:true”]Using official power towards illegitimate ends.
Define “illegitimate” in the relevant context.
Define “illegitimate” in the relevant context.
Not legitimate.
A goal that is separate from the best interests of the United States.