You are lying, again. Murthy was dismissed for lack of standing. No findings of legal merit were made.
You know that everyone can actually read the Murthy v. Missouri decision, right? You on the other hand, you saw the word "dismissed" and stopped both reading and thinking.
Do you even know the reason for the dismissal? Mike spelled it out for you, the Supreme Court found no First Amendment violation which meant the plaintiffs had no standing under Article III because it was determined they had not been and will not be affected by governmental actions.
You always make the same lie, and CITE YOURSELF LYING as documentation.
We have been over this before and it seems you don't understand simple things like referring to previous opinions someone wrote to establish a fuller picture for the reader of the writer's position. Every time Mike cites one of his own articles they contain all the previous cites and links to news articles, legal documents and court decisions. That you can't understand this is entirely due to your abject clownishness and failure as a human being.
As for people trying to obstruct law enforcement operations, surveilling targets is very different than political dissent, isn’t it?
You aren't a big on learning history, are you? Organized protesting and obstruction of governments and their agents is and have always been the hallmark of political dissent. How the fuck do you think the US was created? By having the red-coats knocking on someone's door and apologizing profusely after that person wrote polite letters disagreeing with the king whereupon all the British skedaddled back to Great Britain?
They are following them to try to stop them from accomplishing their duties. That is, depending on how far they go, NOT protected speech.
Well then, I assume writing polite letters is your definition of NOT protected speech.
You disingenuous partisan pissant.
I have to inform you that you claimed that title ages ago.
No, it's a felony to divulge classified information (unless you are the sitting President apparently), and the clause explicitly says it doesn't apply to treason, felony or breach of peace. See US Constitution Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 and 18 US Code §793-798.
It could be argued that 18 US Code §1924 (b) would legally protect the suggested action, but there is no precedence and that means a protracted legal action that would put Wyden out of commission as senator for the foreseeable future. Of course, the current administration may decide to just make some shit up and stick him in jail for treason.
I think it's very important that you stick to the actual facts Stephen, not every conservative was a friend of Epstein.
With that said, I just want to add that in 34 states if an older man marries a girl under the age of sexual consent, that man isn't considered a pedophile according to the law.
In other words, I shouldn’t have to pay taxes so that a non-citizen can get social services
I'll say this: You don't pay taxes so other people can benefit, you pay taxes so you personally can benefit from living in a functional society. This is a concept that seems to be alien to most Americans who get incensed when tax money is spent in a way they find unfair, ie the think someone else is undeservedly benefitting from the taxes they paid.
Here’s where I think the controversy will begin. I think that a non-citizen can be excluded from entry into a country on whatever terms that country chooses. A non-citizen can be expelled from a country on whatever terms that country chooses. If the non-citizen refuses to leave, then I believe he/she can be forced to leave.
That's not controversial in the slightest, that you think so means you don't actually understand what the real controversy is: The government is ignoring and breaking the law, not upholding it and there are people like you who are cheering them on while unable to understand why other people find that reprehensible. It's very disturbing that none of you can't see how it destroys democracy and the rule of law and how it is replacing them with might makes right.
You are missing the bigger picture that laws with negative consequences for everyone has been written based on less noise than this.
The point of laws is to address actual problems without creating other problems, which almost never happen when the call "Think of children!" is raised and used as the sole impetus ignoring everything else.
Just think of the implication of his statement, he likes that this government lies to people even though he almost had several aneurisms when he thought (ie, being fed lies from the right-wing echo chamber) the Biden administration lied.
Just look how he accuses Mike of lying for, a) having an opinion that, b) is based on easily verifiable sources and facts because, c) he thinks those sources are biased as fuuuuck.
He isn't new, he's just a failed engineer that can't hack reality. He vowed to never post here again after consistently being proven wrong, now he's back as a shit-posting troll always shitting out contrarian views that bear no resemblance to actual reality while thinking he's owning people.
I guess what I’m getting at is what distinction does the different titles conference to the individuals? If there is absolutely no difference at all under the law, then why do we have the distinction at all? What is its utility?
Aren't you a lawyer? Then you should know that a citizen has obligations and allegiance to the country which in turn confer political rights which is something noncitizens don't have or are entitled to, other than that there aren't much of legal differences to which rights they are entitled except those specifically dealing with noncitizens rights to stay in a country.
This particular individual who complains are always trolling because he couldn't hack the reality of constantly being proven wrong. He also thinks he's the smartest person in the room while not understanding how the spamfilter works and that the flagged messages must be manually cleared before showing up - ie someone has to take the time to go through the moderation queue and this entitled ass has this notion that people doing it have the time to do it 24/7.
I think that writing laws that ban disturbing or disgusting generated imagery is a slippery slope which in this case is based on a somewhat valid "think of the children" excuse.
The actual sticking point as I see it is what you asked (rephrased): Do AI-generated content make it harder to detect and prosecute actual sexual exploitation of children?
I think the answer is yes but I have no good answer how to deal with it without greasing the slippery slope.
Are they being arrested or are they being tear gassed? Tear gas is kind of notorious for not being able to discriminate between peaceful protesters, observers, journalists, bystanders, passersby and any intended targets.
It's actually much much easier to deploy fiber in remote areas, there's less problems with ROW, permitting and the need to negotiate with other infrastructure owners.
Which alternative is cheaper, that depends entirely on how you look at it. Using grants to build out a fiber in rural areas directly benefits those towns since that type of projects are usually a partnership between service providers and local government which means service fees are used to run and keep building out coverage. Using Starlink means the rural areas own nothing and has to keep paying in perpetuity to use the service without the local or state economy benefitting from it in any significant way but it will certainly subsidize SpaceX and Starlink with federal money.
And Starlink being plenty fast? For who? For everyone? Are you a telepath that knows the exact needs of everyone that want or need a fast or low latency internet connection? Fiber is always faster and far more reliable than Starlink and it is generally cheaper, except for areas that are so far out in the boonies there are not even reliable infrastructure present for electricity and landlines.
I know you'll balk at the mere suggestion that fiber is cheaper, but it is, you just fail to take Starlink's actual total cost into consideration.
So, who would be okay if I knew your house would be burglarized, and I went into the house with my cell phone to record that burglary?
False equivalence, nobody burglarized anything.
But, if his recording, if known by those who disrupted the service, encouraged those disruptors to commit crimes, then Lemon is an accessory before the fact. Such acts are prosecuted as a principal.
Are you suggesting that Don Lemon have mental powers to control other peoples behavior? There's a difference between actively encouraging people to commit an act vs just documenting it.
Perhaps you should take note of how the DOJ went about trying to make a case against Don Lemon and how the judges reacted. When those who are supposed to uphold justice are using secrecy, obfuscation and untruths it isn't about justice and what is right anymore.
You questioned if Don Lemon was a journalist by posing it as a theoretical question. I questioned if you where a shill by asking another theoretical question based on your own question's reasoning.
How you ask questions and in what context matter hugely, because in this instance you came across as someone who "is just asking questions" while implying that Don Lemon isn't a journalist.
If you instead had asked where do we draw the line between a journalist and for example an activist posing as a journalist it would have been more on point without the underlaying innuendo about Don Lemon's status as a journalist.
You’re not addressing the theoretical example I posted above.
You want a theoretical example?
Imagine someone posting on the internet and they are getting paid to raise "theoretical examples" as a way to cast shade on actual people and question their legitimacy. Should we allow them doing that or should we just declare them to be paid shills that should be ridiculed, belittled and shunned?
Are you a paid shill?
He's saying that executive orders are illegal and that SCOTUS was wrong to stop Biden from deporting immigrants under Title 42.
Seriously, this dude is kind of stupid. Even a goldfish has a better memory and grasp of reality.
You guys need to realize that Weiss is solidly center-left, and she only scares you because you (and most MSM) is cuz you’re all crazy left weirdos.
Funny that, she has no problems filling her right-wing buzzword bingo card every time she opens her mouth. My guess is that you have moved your Overton-window so far right that even Weiss looks like a leftie to you, ie you got even more stupid.
Buddy, the only reason she’s not a full time housewife right now is because you lefties are hateful, violent people willing to shoot a guy for saying things you don’t like.
Some stats for you to ponder (actually, you'll ignore them):
People killed by perpetrator orientation 2016-01 through 2025-07
Orientation Victims Attacks
Right 112 152
Jihadist 82 25
Left 13 35
You were saying who were hateful? Seems to me the right is even more hateful than deluded jihadists. You just can't stop yourself from proving again and again how stupid you are, but I guess that comes with being stupid.
No, it's a felony to divulge classified information (unless you are the sitting President apparently), and the clause explicitly says it doesn't apply to treason, felony or breach of peace. See US Constitution Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 and 18 US Code §793-798. It could be argued that 18 US Code §1924 (b) would legally protect the suggested action, but there is no precedence and that means a protracted legal action that would put Wyden out of commission as senator for the foreseeable future. Of course, the current administration may decide to just make some shit up and stick him in jail for treason.
I think it's very important that you stick to the actual facts Stephen, not every conservative was a friend of Epstein. With that said, I just want to add that in 34 states if an older man marries a girl under the age of sexual consent, that man isn't considered a pedophile according to the law.
You are missing the bigger picture that laws with negative consequences for everyone has been written based on less noise than this. The point of laws is to address actual problems without creating other problems, which almost never happen when the call "Think of children!" is raised and used as the sole impetus ignoring everything else.
Just think of the implication of his statement, he likes that this government lies to people even though he almost had several aneurisms when he thought (ie, being fed lies from the right-wing echo chamber) the Biden administration lied. Just look how he accuses Mike of lying for, a) having an opinion that, b) is based on easily verifiable sources and facts because, c) he thinks those sources are biased as fuuuuck.
He isn't new, he's just a failed engineer that can't hack reality. He vowed to never post here again after consistently being proven wrong, now he's back as a shit-posting troll always shitting out contrarian views that bear no resemblance to actual reality while thinking he's owning people.
This particular individual who complains are always trolling because he couldn't hack the reality of constantly being proven wrong. He also thinks he's the smartest person in the room while not understanding how the spamfilter works and that the flagged messages must be manually cleared before showing up - ie someone has to take the time to go through the moderation queue and this entitled ass has this notion that people doing it have the time to do it 24/7.
No, you didn't stutter but you certainly shat out one big non sequitur and you didn't even realize it. Reminds me of the current rumor about Trump..
I think that writing laws that ban disturbing or disgusting generated imagery is a slippery slope which in this case is based on a somewhat valid "think of the children" excuse. The actual sticking point as I see it is what you asked (rephrased): Do AI-generated content make it harder to detect and prosecute actual sexual exploitation of children? I think the answer is yes but I have no good answer how to deal with it without greasing the slippery slope.
Are they being arrested or are they being tear gassed? Tear gas is kind of notorious for not being able to discriminate between peaceful protesters, observers, journalists, bystanders, passersby and any intended targets.
It's actually much much easier to deploy fiber in remote areas, there's less problems with ROW, permitting and the need to negotiate with other infrastructure owners. Which alternative is cheaper, that depends entirely on how you look at it. Using grants to build out a fiber in rural areas directly benefits those towns since that type of projects are usually a partnership between service providers and local government which means service fees are used to run and keep building out coverage. Using Starlink means the rural areas own nothing and has to keep paying in perpetuity to use the service without the local or state economy benefitting from it in any significant way but it will certainly subsidize SpaceX and Starlink with federal money. And Starlink being plenty fast? For who? For everyone? Are you a telepath that knows the exact needs of everyone that want or need a fast or low latency internet connection? Fiber is always faster and far more reliable than Starlink and it is generally cheaper, except for areas that are so far out in the boonies there are not even reliable infrastructure present for electricity and landlines. I know you'll balk at the mere suggestion that fiber is cheaper, but it is, you just fail to take Starlink's actual total cost into consideration.
You questioned if Don Lemon was a journalist by posing it as a theoretical question. I questioned if you where a shill by asking another theoretical question based on your own question's reasoning. How you ask questions and in what context matter hugely, because in this instance you came across as someone who "is just asking questions" while implying that Don Lemon isn't a journalist. If you instead had asked where do we draw the line between a journalist and for example an activist posing as a journalist it would have been more on point without the underlaying innuendo about Don Lemon's status as a journalist.
Do I smell a hint of hate-speech in your answer? Hmm....
He's saying that executive orders are illegal and that SCOTUS was wrong to stop Biden from deporting immigrants under Title 42. Seriously, this dude is kind of stupid. Even a goldfish has a better memory and grasp of reality.