381–390 of 475 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Speech is violence" is very popular with the campus groups that want to ban speakers they disagree with. I'm not sure if it's still going on, but a few years ago the same crowd kept insisting that "silence is violence" which is even more ludicrous - if you're not parroting their critical race theory talking points at every opportunity, YOU are committing an act of violence.
I wish the people down voting you would take a moment to explain why. Not because I agree with you, but because I don't know about this and I am curious and would appreciate a calm rational person to explain why they disagree with you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I dislike it when people claim speech is violence. Like if you're trying to have a conversation on what should be or not - then people claim that it's a violent act to talk about.
I think this both overstates and understates the case. The evidence being weak does not invalidate the decision; as the court notes, the government gets substantial deference on matters of national security. The invalidation comes from the fact that this is clearly retaliatory behavior for speech; and the evidence for this is fairly strong since the administration has made public statements to that effect. The eviden…
[flagged]
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2026/08/trump-intervene...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't this exactly what the war on terror was for? To always be able to claim that the US is currently at war?
the war on terror is/was as real as the war on drugs and the war on christmas
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Congress ceding it's authority to the executive branch is an issue of national concern, has been going on for decades, and is definitely not limited to one specific party [1], though I do agree that the current administration has been testing the limits of executive power more than any other that I can recall in my lifetime. [1] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/its-...
The current administration is the final nail in the coffin of presidential-style governments versus the parliamentary system. Separating the legislature and the executive has no useful purpose: if the president is going to defacto enact law should be handled by the legislature, then there's no reason they shouldn't just be the head of the legislature and forced to actually whip the votes to do so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I dislike it when people claim speech is violence. Like if you're trying to have a conversation on what should be or not - then people claim that it's a violent act to talk about.
"Speech is violence" is very popular with the campus groups that want to ban speakers they disagree with. I'm not sure if it's still going on, but a few years ago the same crowd kept insisting that "silence is violence" which is even more ludicrous - if you're not parroting their critical race theory talking points at every opportunity, YOU are committing an act of violence.
What fascinating about these is that they eventually turn on themselves, because rhetoric has no logical foundation and can be twisted to mean anything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The current administration is the final nail in the coffin of presidential-style governments versus the parliamentary system. Separating the legislature and the executive has no useful purpose: if the president is going to defacto enact law should be handled by the legislature, then there's no reason they shouldn't just be the head of the legislature and forced to actually whip the votes to do so.
The US president was always designed to be like this. It's like people are deliberately forgetting anti-federalists were not only a thing, they warned about these exact same problems over 200 years ago.
I think this both overstates and understates the case. The evidence being weak does not invalidate the decision; as the court notes, the government gets substantial deference on matters of national security. The invalidation comes from the fact that this is clearly retaliatory behavior for speech; and the evidence for this is fairly strong since the administration has made public statements to that effect. The eviden…
[flagged]
Want to execute a citizen without trial? National security.
Want to execute his child without trial? National security.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anthropic would estimate (and provide justification of) how much lost income (and perhaps brand equity, opportunity cost, etc.) it suffered as a result of the government's actions, and the judge would consider it and decide.
I know that’s how it works. How could they possibly estimate that in this specific case.
How it works is that the complainant makes an argument with an amount attached, the argument is reviewed and discussed by all parties, and the judge decides. The law system is amazingly free-form in some respects, which is why precedent is so important: there's not much else constraining things.