|
Post by cadman on Jul 12, 2024 11:57:15 GMT -5
Ya, Jones pushed the “9/11 was an inside job” narrative as well. Truly a piece of shit. Did your team of tards abolish the first amendment without letting everyone else know? Maybe you should read it for once. It protects you from the government censoring your speech, not private individuals suing you civilly for slander and lying. You can say what you want without the government stopping you, but you may pay out the ass if you lie about others and they sue you. You can also be ostracized by the public if your behavior is outrageous enough. That is their first amendment right. You might also study the case law regarding private and public persons.
|
|
|
Post by meateater on Jul 12, 2024 12:04:56 GMT -5
Did your team of tards abolish the first amendment without letting everyone else know? Maybe you should read it for once. It protects you from the government censoring your speech, not private individuals suing you civilly for slander and lying. You can say what you want without the government stopping you, but you may pay out the ass if you lie about others and they sue you. You can also be ostracized by the public if your behavior is outrageous enough. That is their first amendment right. You might also study the case law regarding private and public persons. what are you now , a lawyer, what should we call you? tadpole or pollywog.
|
|
|
Post by ferris1248 on Jul 12, 2024 12:09:45 GMT -5
So you believe the entire Sandy Hook episode was staged? The children were never murdered and are still alive? Please use your feelings to direct us to any comments that reflect what you're assuming. So you believe the entire Sandy Hook episode was staged? The children were never murdered and are still alive? Where you're involved, I never assume anything. Answer the question yourself.
|
|
|
Post by Tarponator on Jul 12, 2024 15:29:48 GMT -5
Maybe you should read it for once. It protects you from the government censoring your speech, not private individuals suing you civilly for slander and lying. You can say what you want without the government stopping you, but you may pay out the ass if you lie about others and they sue you. You can also be ostracized by the public if your behavior is outrageous enough. That is their first amendment right. You might also study the case law regarding private and public persons. what are you now , a lawyer, what should we call you? tadpole or pollywog. You should call him correct.
|
|
|
Post by garycoleco on Jul 12, 2024 16:47:01 GMT -5
Did your team of tards abolish the first amendment without letting everyone else know? Maybe you should read it for once. It protects you from the government censoring your speech, not private individuals suing you civilly for slander and lying. You can say what you want without the government stopping you, but you may pay out the ass if you lie about others and they sue you. You can also be ostracized by the public if your behavior is outrageous enough. That is their first amendment right. You might also study the case law regarding private and public persons. The freedom of speech protects opinions..... Fuck man
|
|
|
Post by dragonbait on Jul 12, 2024 16:59:14 GMT -5
Tell that to the court and the jury that found him guilty of defamation
|
|
|
Post by biminitwisted on Jul 12, 2024 17:01:18 GMT -5
Maybe you should read it for once. It protects you from the government censoring your speech, not private individuals suing you civilly for slander and lying. You can say what you want without the government stopping you, but you may pay out the ass if you lie about others and they sue you. You can also be ostracized by the public if your behavior is outrageous enough. That is their first amendment right. You might also study the case law regarding private and public persons. The freedom of speech protects opinions..... Fuck man Only as far as consequences from the government.
|
|
|
Post by cadman on Jul 12, 2024 17:57:28 GMT -5
Maybe you should read it for once. It protects you from the government censoring your speech, not private individuals suing you civilly for slander and lying. You can say what you want without the government stopping you, but you may pay out the ass if you lie about others and they sue you. You can also be ostracized by the public if your behavior is outrageous enough. That is their first amendment right. You might also study the case law regarding private and public persons. The freedom of speech protects opinions..... Fuck man It does protect opinions to a degree. Problem is Jones knew it was a lie and testified in court he knew it was a lie and knew the shooting was real. He had listeners threaten and demean the parents. He remarks defamed them. He lied on purpose and admitted to the lie.
|
|
|
Post by tonyroma on Jul 12, 2024 23:33:44 GMT -5
The freedom of speech protects opinions..... Fuck man It does protect opinions to a degree. Problem is Jones knew it was a lie and testified in court he knew it was a lie and knew the shooting was real. He had listeners threaten and demean the parents. He remarks defamed them. He lied on purpose and admitted to the lie. Mic drop
|
|
|
Post by garycoleco on Jul 13, 2024 8:39:39 GMT -5
The freedom of speech protects opinions..... Fuck man It does protect opinions to a degree. Problem is Jones knew it was a lie and testified in court he knew it was a lie and knew the shooting was real. He had listeners threaten and demean the parents. He remarks defamed them. He lied on purpose and admitted to the lie. Why did he testify to that in court? Why did the other parents who's children were murdered decide not to sue? Were they not defamed? Did they choose not to whore out the death of their child?
|
|
|
Post by walkerdog on Jul 13, 2024 8:52:44 GMT -5
Less government regulation and screw the FAA and their rule making authority. Am I right? John Robert’s and Justice Jackson should determine the torque specs on a 737 hatch door. BS. That’s not at all what the decision indicated. What it said was that our legislative representatives should receive and consider the advice of those that actually do know what they are, before they establish a law regarding it. What you’re advocating for is that we make laws differently than what our constitution allows. If you haven’t seen the problems that result from that line of thinking, that’s on you.
|
|
|
Post by cadman on Jul 13, 2024 10:48:29 GMT -5
It does protect opinions to a degree. Problem is Jones knew it was a lie and testified in court he knew it was a lie and knew the shooting was real. He had listeners threaten and demean the parents. He remarks defamed them. He lied on purpose and admitted to the lie. Why did he testify to that in court? Why did the other parents who's children were murdered decide not to sue? Were they not defamed? Did they choose not to whore out the death of their child? i think he was trying to play on the sympathy of the court. Jones apologised to the parents, met with them, said he tried to take it back but the media would not let him. Then a month later, he said he was done saying he was sorry and was combative in court. I think all the parents were involved in one of the three lawsuits filed against him. Some did not join the original. I do not know which parents or children Jones may have mentioned on his show, that could also play a role in who sued. But I know there were three separate lawsuits with a total of around $1.5 Billion in damages. The guy may have mental issues. Or his ratings dropped and he changed tactics, who knows. For him it is all about the money.
|
|
|
Post by cadman on Jul 13, 2024 11:07:02 GMT -5
John Robert’s and Justice Jackson should determine the torque specs on a 737 hatch door. BS. That’s not at all what the decision indicated. What it said was that our legislative representatives should receive and consider the advice of those that actually do know what they are, before they establish a law regarding it. What you’re advocating for is that we make laws differently than what our constitution allows. If you haven’t seen the problems that result from that line of thinking, that’s on you. Where does the SCOTUS decision say that? I think the court ruled that the judicial body should receive and consider the advice and not blindly obey the administratives interpretation. Congress can still delegate discretionary authority to agencies. Congress can transfer it's power to the agency if it writes into the law. The decision just says the judge should not blindly side with the administrative bodies interpretation of the statute, but look at all the evidence and decide if the agencies interpretation was correct. Agencies will still have to interpret statutes and make rules based on that interpretation. Congress will likely write such laws giving the agency that authority as part of the statute. Congress is not going to list every possible rule that might affect the law. As an example given: Justice Barrett gave the example of the difference between a drug and a supplement under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, suggesting that “the definition of dietary supplement or drug might be something that’s a question of statutory interpretation … but which category one thing fell in might be a question of policy for the agency.”So congress will give a broad definition of what is a drug and what is a supplement and then the agency will write rules defining which products fall under each category. The courts will then determine if the agency made the correct decision.
|
|
|
Post by walkerdog on Jul 13, 2024 13:47:28 GMT -5
BS. That’s not at all what the decision indicated. What it said was that our legislative representatives should receive and consider the advice of those that actually do know what they are, before they establish a law regarding it. What you’re advocating for is that we make laws differently than what our constitution allows. If you haven’t seen the problems that result from that line of thinking, that’s on you. Where does the SCOTUS decision say that? I think the court ruled that the judicial body should receive and consider the advice and not blindly obey the administratives interpretation. Congress can still delegate discretionary authority to agencies. Congress can transfer it's power to the agency if it writes into the law. The decision just says the judge should not blindly side with the administrative bodies interpretation of the statute, but look at all the evidence and decide if the agencies interpretation was correct. Agencies will still have to interpret statutes and make rules based on that interpretation. Congress will likely write such laws giving the agency that authority as part of the statute. Congress is not going to list every possible rule that might affect the law. As an example given: Justice Barrett gave the example of the difference between a drug and a supplement under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, suggesting that “the definition of dietary supplement or drug might be something that’s a question of statutory interpretation … but which category one thing fell in might be a question of policy for the agency.”So congress will give a broad definition of what is a drug and what is a supplement and then the agency will write rules defining which products fall under each category. The courts will then determine if the agency made the correct decision. When you read something and comprehend it, you also get the intent rather than just the actual words used. Do you believe that the SCOTUS’ decision implies that our legislative representatives need to only rely on their own knowledge on any subject they are writing legislation on? I sure don’t.
|
|
|
Post by Zif on Jul 13, 2024 14:06:16 GMT -5
You do realize that there are countless examples of people stating things that either are not true and hateful? Are you old enough to remember 9-11? All the conspiracy theories about internal demolitions or government agents etc etc? Why weren’t those people sued? Ya, Jones pushed the “9/11 was an inside job” narrative as well. Truly a piece of shit. Thousands of architects and engineers are truly pieces of shit too, right?
|
|