What worries me is if Dems get elected I doubt that they would hesitate to implement online censorship.
I didn't recognize the New Zealand PM without her hijab.
It's like we're watching the latest crappy Disney movie - "Clown Wars - The Honk Awakens".
Fuck off New Zealand!!
Fuck all of the off New Zealand!!
The US: Oh, fuck off with that shit.
Imagine being so woke that you try fighting "fascism" by using fascism. Free Speech must reign. Go fck yourself censor-loving nutjobs.
lol, wanting to combat "hate speech."?
Pretty sure they mean speech they hate.
Also stop flogging the Christchurch dead horse, noone gives a fuck anymore.
They are trying to use the Christchurch shooting like they used 9/11 to pass the Patriot Act to "stop terrorism" but will just wind up using the new powers created to go after their political enemies.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, Matal v. Tam (2017):
The Government may not insulate a law from charges of viewpoint discrimination by tying censorship to the reaction of the speaker’s audience.The Court has suggested that viewpoint discrimination occurs when the government intends to suppress a speaker’s beliefs, ..., but viewpoint discrimination need not take that form in every instance. The danger of viewpoint discrimination is that the government is attempting to remove certain ideas or perspectives from a broader debate. That danger is all the greater if the ideas or perspectives are ones a particular audience might think offensive, at least at first hearing. An initial reaction may prompt further reflection, leading to a more reasoned, more tolerant position.
Indeed, a speech burden based on audience reactions is simply government hostility and intervention in a different guise. The speech is targeted, after all, based on the government’s disapproval of the speaker’s choice of message. And it is the government itself that is attempting in this case to decide whether the relevant audience would find the speech offensive. For reasons like these, the Court’s cases have long prohibited the government from justifying a First Amendment burden by pointing to the offensiveness of the speech to be suppressed.
... A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.
Thank. Fucking. God.
Now...let's do everything we can do keep it that way.
God bless America.
"Andrew Torba, you are a legend, sir. This is incredibly innovative and very important." - Dave Cullen