Melllvar

If social media companies exist to collect massive troves of personal info from users–and they do–then there is a valid national security concern over social media controlled by an adversary. This is distinct from the individual privacy concerns towards domestically-controlled social media.

No it’s not. There’s no bail, for example, and no plea bargaining in civil cases; jail time isn’t on the table, the district attorney isn’t involved, the standard of evidence is lower, and the rules of procedure are different.

First comes the discovery phase where both sides exchange evidence and the court settles any evidentiary questions. This phase can frequently take longer than the trial itself.

This is a civil case.

Ask Robespierre how that works out in the end.

Today, the US is withholding billions of dollars in Afghan assets, cutting off a crucial economic lifeline for the people of Afghanistan.

What assets are they talking about here?

Lisa needs braces!

35

https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-investigations/election-certification-under-threat/

I’m not familiar with the idiom “spitting on the wrong horn.” Here’s the context of the quote:

But weigh this [the evils of liberty] against the oppression of monarchy, and it becomes nothing. Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem [“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery”]. Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs. I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.

I feel like you’re arguing a point I haven’t taken a position on. I’m only saying that arrests like this seem insane to an American sensibility.

The conservatives gave it the power to prosecute people for protesting climate change and made it inadmissible evidence for them to explain the reasons for their protest

But I will say that changing the law like that is also insane to an American sensibility.

It’s less about thinking she shouldn’t be punished for her speech, and more about thinking that the state shouldn’t have the power to punish speech. To quote Thomas Jefferson, “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.”

I’m not upgrading because I don’t trust Windows 11. Not that 10 has my confidence, of course, but 11 seems worse.

It’s not a question of what speech I think should be allowed, but rather a question of what powers I think the state should have.

I’m not confusing them. But I’m also not a fan of using the power if the state to punish people I disagree with, even if they say vile things. Such power will inevitably be abused, turned against me, etc.

It’s safer in the long run to preserve free speech and expression, even if it means people get away with being asshats.

I don’t think that would do a lot in terms of protecting unpopular speech.

The problem is in who decides what speech should be punished.

💩

deleted by creator

Point of order: the Constitution doesn’t set the number of justices, it gives that power to Congress.