And THATs why we’re leaving Afghanistan.Trump pulled us out of Afghanistan. Biden’s keeping us in. He’s feverishly trying to get us into another war.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider
And THATs why we’re leaving Afghanistan.Yeah, Trump decided to pull us out. It was supposed to happen yesterday actually. Joe decided to push it back to Sept 11 because he wants to celebrate our loss.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider
Zarif refuted Kerry. But that’s not the point. The NYT broke the story. Not Parler or any news organization that posts on Parler. But Speedy, what you fail to comprehend is that Parler wouldn’t exist if FB, Twitter didn’t ban conservative voices. And the 1st amendment is just as important as due process in this country. Do you agree Speedy. And there are calls for Kerry to testify in congress. But, obviously Biden will protect him. There’s a two tier justice system in this country. Gen Flynn was tortured for less than what Kerry did. Originally Posted by bambinoYou are correct in that Parler would not exist if not for the actions of FB and Twitter. 1st amendment rights, like 2nd amendment rights, are NOT absolute. Those that have been sued by Dominion Voting Systems will learn that in spades.
1st amendment rights, like 2nd amendment rights, are NOT absolute. Those that have been sued by Dominion Voting Systems will learn that in spades. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXXIncorrect, rights are absolute and inalienable. The difference is that in the Dominion case, it's not an infringement because the government is not the one infringing on their rights.
You are correct in that Parler would not exist if not for the actions of FB and Twitter. 1st amendment rights, like 2nd amendment rights, are NOT absolute. Those that have been sued by Dominion Voting Systems will learn that in spades.Your completely wrong. It’s probably been 65yrs since you’ve had a civics class. But you should revisit the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They’re under assault und the Joseph Robinate Biden administration. Or whoever is running the country now. They’re certainly not Patriots.
Will Kerry be asked to appear before Congress? Some Republicans will ask for it but I doubt he will but it won't be Biden's decision but rather the decision of those in Congress. I personally do not care one way or the other. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX
Incorrect, rights are absolute and inalienable. The difference is that in the Dominion case, it's not an infringement because the government is not the one infringing on their rights. Originally Posted by GastonGlockAre you claiming, that non-government people, can publish lies about Dominion, without being held accountable?
Are you claiming, that non-government people, can publish lies about Dominion, without being held accountable? Originally Posted by pfunkdenverIt's up to Dominion to take it to the courts and make a case that it's hurting their business.
It's up to Dominion to take it to the courts and make a case that it's hurting their business.But this forum is Kindergarten. Maybe not as advanced. Where’s the toilets meme?
I can lie about you in the public square and say all sorts of awful and untruthful things, that's not illegal. What's punishable, is my harming your ability to make a living by damaging your reputation, and that's only if it's false, and even then the only damage is that I have to pay for the amount of business you can demonstrate you've lost.
The real world is not kindergarten, I don't get in trouble just for calling you names. Originally Posted by GastonGlock
Your completely wrong. It’s probably been 65yrs since you’ve had a civics class. But you should revisit the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They’re under assault und the Joseph Robinate Biden administration. Or whoever is running the country now. They’re certainly not Patriots. Originally Posted by bambinoCourts all the way up to and including the SCOTUS have ruled that the 1st and 2nd Amendments are not absolute. Do your homework.
It's up to Dominion to take it to the courts and make a case that it's hurting their business.Fake Claims About Dominion Voting Systems Do Real Damage
I can lie about you in the public square and say all sorts of awful and untruthful things, that's not illegal. What's punishable, is my harming your ability to make a living by damaging your reputation, and that's only if it's false, and even then the only damage is that I have to pay for the amount of business you can demonstrate you've lost.
The real world is not kindergarten, I don't get in trouble just for calling you names. Originally Posted by GastonGlock
Courts all the way up to and including the SCOTUS have ruled that the 1st and 2nd Amendments are not absolute. Do your homework. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXXThat's nice, but I'm a free man. The Supreme Court doesn't tell me what to do.
Fake Claims About Dominion Voting Systems Do Real DamageYeah, that's the point I was trying to make.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/fake-cl...ge-11606755399
Dominion and Smartmatic have serious shot at victory in election disinformation suits, experts say
To win a defamation case, a plaintiff typically needs to show that the defendant made a false statement of fact that caused harm to the defendant. If the plaintiff is a public figure, they also have to show that the defendant acted with “actual malice” — essentially meaning that the speaker knew or should have known that what they said wasn’t true.
Among the false statements that Dominion and Smartmatic are suing over are claims made by Giuliani and Powell, on Fox News shows and elsewhere, that Dominion is owned by Smartmatic and was created at the direction of the deceased Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez to fix elections, including the 2020 contest between Trump and Biden. Lindell also falsely claimed that Dominion machines were used to steal millions of votes for Biden.
Schulz said the lawsuits are “one of the few avenues we have at the moment to rein in misinformation.”
If Dominion and Smartmatic do win their cases, it could still be an uphill battle for them to receive the billions they say they are owed.
If the companies prove that the defendants’ statements were defamatory, they are entitled to the amount of money they can prove they lost as a result of the claims — such as lost elections contracts. They may also be entitled to punitive damages, or money meant to dissuade the defendants from spreading lies in the future.
Each company has asked for punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages, or money to repay them for harm they suffered. In Dominion’s case, it has split those damages down the middle, saying it is owed about $651.7 million for each kind of damage. Smartmatic has not specified the amount of punitive damages it wants, but says that it is owed $2.7 billion in compensatory damages.
While Dominion and Smartmatic can support their claim to compensatory damages with evidence that they’ve lost business as a result of the false statements they are suing over, punitive damages are far more discretionary and can turn on factors such as how wealthy a defendant is.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/24/domi...e-experts.html Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX
That's nice, but I'm a free man. The Supreme Court doesn't tell me what to do.What you stated does not impact my statement that the 1st and 2nd Amendments are NOT absolute. You may disagree with court rulings and choose to not abide by their decisions but that does not invalidate my statement.
If I obey a law, it's because it's in-line with what I was going to do anyways. If I find a law to be inconvenient or I disagree with it, I choose to ignore it. The only authority I submit to is the owner of a given parcel of land that I'm standing on, because I believe in treating people with the respect I wish to be treated with.
I do not submit to those who violate their oaths to the Constitution, and I don't submit to Federal Hegemony.
Originally Posted by GastonGlock
That's nice, but I'm a free man. The Supreme Court doesn't tell me what to do.So... you're an anarchist!
If I obey a law, it's because it's in-line with what I was going to do anyways. If I find a law to be inconvenient or I disagree with it, I choose to ignore it. The only authority I submit to is the owner of a given parcel of land that I'm standing on, because I believe in treating people with the respect I wish to be treated with.
I do not submit to those who violate their oaths to the Constitution, and I don't submit to Federal Hegemony. Originally Posted by GastonGlock