Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Activist" is not a charitable description of any of the justices. It is widely accepted that _Roe_ was on unstable legal grounding, at best.
Would rogue be more acceptable?
A majority can't really be "rogue" either.
Jack Dorsey says he agrees with reversing Trump's Twitter ban
341–350 of 366 posts
Re: Jack Dorsey says he agrees with reversing Trump's Twitter ban
#342Earlier quoted context omitted.
The example I always use here as someone who grew up in the 90s is that having an openly gay character on network tv used to be extremely controversial at best and politically untenable at worst.
Except the side who are "free speech absolutists" are worried about those gay characters kissing in "She-Ra" remake or various Disney+ cartoons where men kiss, and want that stuff censored off the airs. And then want to ban the book "Maus", etc. etc.
> Except the side who are "free speech absolutists" are worried about those gay characters kissing in "She-Ra" remake or various Disney+ cartoons where men kiss,
Does holding freedom of speech as an ideal mean you must never dislike anything or tell anyone else that you dislike it? Is Elon giving orders to Disney+ about what they can and can't show? Is he going to ban Disney from using Twitter now because two guys kissed in a cartoon?
> and want that stuff censored off the airs.
There is indeed censorship of broadcast media but it long predates Elon or Twitter and it's done by the FCC.
> And then want to ban the book "Maus", etc. etc.
Removing a book from the curriculum and replacing it with another book that teaches pretty much the same thing is hardly "banning" it. Did students face disciplinary action or criminal charges for possessing a copy of Maus on school grounds? Did parents who bought a copy for their kids get a visit from the sheriff? Was Amazon ordered to stop selling it?
It's ridiculous. If you think about it almost all books are similarly "banned" as there are countless possible books you could have kids read and very limited time and space on the curriculum. We had the Pearson algebra textbook in high school so I guess that means the McGraw-Hill one was "banned".
Re: Jack Dorsey says he agrees with reversing Trump's Twitter ban
#343Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Activist" is not a charitable description of any of the justices. It is widely accepted that _Roe_ was on unstable legal grounding, at best.
Whatever one thinks of the legal grounding of the Roe decision, those criticisms pale in comparison to throwing stare decisis out the window and trying to make an enumerated-rights argument without even addressing the 9th amendment[1] in the room. Charitable descriptions are, at this point, unmerrited. [1] "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others reta…
SCOTUS hasn't used the ninth amendment much, and it wasn't the basis for Roe (though I think RBG would have preferred that it was).
I think intellectual honesty would lead most people to think that Roe had to go. The only question was: do we fix it with better reasoning (if some Constitutional basis does exist), or throw it out. Casey tried to do the former but didn't quite seem to do it. So now it's gone and left to the states.
I suspect only a few states will go extreme. And they'll have to see the consequences and try to make it work, or answer to the electorate.
Re: Jack Dorsey says he agrees with reversing Trump's Twitter ban
#344Earlier quoted context omitted.
Plenty of people are not banned for breaking the rules. People literally calling for the death of people are on Twitter and their tweets still up. You may have been banned, but there is no guarantee.
A sitting president with millions of followers has a lot more power to create actual harm via some random tweet than some random teenager with 3 followers. How is this not obvious?
I'm not talking about a person with 3 followers. People with hundreds of thousands of followers have made calls to violence as well.
Re: Jack Dorsey says he agrees with reversing Trump's Twitter ban
#345Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even RGB said that Roe vs Wade was on questionable constitutional grounds. Calling them activists is pretty ridiculous.
And the new decision is on even less constitutional grounds. There is nothing in the constitution that allows a state to force a woman to carry a baby. But it happens to be their preferred judicial activism, and therefore somehow not applicable.
So in your view the government cannot make laws against abortion because the constitution doesn't say they can? If that is the case then we can't have laws against rape, assault, reckless driving, etc. The 10th amendment says any power not granted to the federal government and not banned by the constitution is left for the states.
Re: Jack Dorsey says he agrees with reversing Trump's Twitter ban
#346Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even RGB said that Roe vs Wade was on questionable constitutional grounds. Calling them activists is pretty ridiculous.
And the new decision is on even less constitutional grounds. There is nothing in the constitution that allows a state to force a woman to carry a baby. But it happens to be their preferred judicial activism, and therefore somehow not applicable.
This kind of thinking only applies to the federal government. State governments are constrained by the bill of rights.
Re: Jack Dorsey says he agrees with reversing Trump's Twitter ban
#347It's not surprising that someone who sounds like a sort of free speech absolutist agrees that permanent bans are bad for the idea of free and accessible speech. The problem I have with some free speech purists is that they give me a feeling that they are persons who are more often than not unaffected by speech that can be categorised as inciting hatred towards a people, and thus they see little to no problem with bei…
Women haven't lost any rights that I can think of. The US has extremely liberal abortion laws [1]. Even many liberal legal analysts believe Roe is past due to be overturned-- the US constitution says nothing about rights to terminate a pregnancy.
If anything, unborn babies may have gained the right to life.
Re: Jack Dorsey says he agrees with reversing Trump's Twitter ban
#348Official company statement at the time: "Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump": https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio... Jack Dorsey at the time: "Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey Calls Trump Ban After Deadly Riot 'the Right Decision'": https://people.com/politics/twitter-ceo-jack-dorsey-addresse...
Changing your mind on complex issues like this is normal I'd say.
Re: Jack Dorsey says he agrees with reversing Trump's Twitter ban
#349Earlier quoted context omitted.
People can't change mind?
Sure. I used to respect Jack, now I’ve changed my mind.
So you're pro censorship?
I'm more on the "I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It" -boat. Actually I though most people here would be, I'm a bit disappointed tbh.
Re: Jack Dorsey says he agrees with reversing Trump's Twitter ban
#350Earlier quoted context omitted.
Belief in free speech is a fundamental prerequisite to free thought. We express all critical thinking in words - if that speech cannot be shared, then neither can the ideas. There is nothing more tyrannical than restricting speech, which is something the Founders recognized quite well, given their own situation with the English king as well as that of their recent ancestors fleeing their European homelands for a new,…
The Free Speech of the 1st Amendment, not only only applies to government entities, it is not absolute. Obscenity, fighting words, defamation (including libel and slander), child pornography, perjury, blackmail, incitement to imminent lawless action, threats and solicitations to commit crimes are not protected speech. They are examples of restricted speech, and according to you, there "is nothing more tyrannical than…
>> Death to tyrants restricting you from producing child pornography, right?
Did you seriously compared free speech to child pornography? Why not add murder and stealing in the mix as well, that will make your point stand out even more.