Cannabis Extracts Face Stricter Controls Amid Regulatory Shift

[Yagoda]

21 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Vox got it's facts straight. 

And it takes a major league ignoramus to not know that Sullivan is a core free speech first amendment case.

New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)

New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that First Amendment freedom of speech protections limit the ability of public officials to sue for defamation. 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/new_york_times_v_sullivan_(1964)#:~:text=Sullivan (1964) is a landmark,officials to sue for defamation.

 

 

OK legal-expert-who-isnt-even-an-American, tell us how overuling or modifying Sullivan (which is an ongoing legal discussion) affects the Democrat/Harris regimes' blatant documented obvious everyoneknowsabout efforts to control speech?

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

OK legal-expert-who-isnt-even-an-American, tell us how overuling or modifying Sullivan (which is an ongoing legal discussion) affects the Democrat/Harris regimes' blatant documented obvious everyoneknowsabout efforts to control speech?

Whether or not I'm an American is irreleant. It's the facts that are relevant. That said, given your lack of basic understanding of the First Amendment, if anyone's American citizenship should be questioned, it's yours.

 

And  just to make clear how ignorant you are here's what you wrote.

"You don't even know the issues surrounding NY Times vs Sullivan well enough to differentiate them from First Amendment Litigation. Study up, Ill wait for you at the big boy table."

 

What follows is taken from the text of the Supreme Court decision:

 

Held: A State cannot, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, award damages to a public official for defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves "actual malice" -- that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false. Pp. 376 U. S. 265-292.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/376/254/

 

 

[Will B Good]

 

 

 

This free speech thing really needs to be stopped.......wannabe dictators just can't cope with it.......

 

 

 

 

 

Trump baselessly claims CBS committed a crime with Kamala Harris interview - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-cbs-60-minutes-interview-b2626525.html 

[Yagoda]

26 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Whether or not I'm an American is irreleant. It's the facts that are relevant. That said, given your lack of basic understanding of the First Amendment, if anyone's American citizenship should be questioned, it's yours.

 

And  just to make clear how ignorant you are here's what you wrote.

"You don't even know the issues surrounding NY Times vs Sullivan well enough to differentiate them from First Amendment Litigation. Study up, Ill wait for you at the big boy table."

 

What follows is taken from the text of the Supreme Court decision:

 

Held: A State cannot, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, award damages to a public official for defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves "actual malice" -- that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false. Pp. 376 U. S. 265-292.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/376/254/

 

 

Well at least you got the holding right LOL, although its usually marked for you.

 

Again, tell us how any intellectual dispute as to the actual malice standards imposed on a common law State Defamation is relevant to the continual issue of Government stifling dissent protected by the First Amendment.

 

By the way, do we need to go into the religious discrimination perpetrated by the Harris regime?

[Yagoda]

30 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

 

 

This free speech thing really needs to be stopped.......wannabe dictators just can't cope with it.......

 

 

 

 

 

Trump baselessly claims CBS committed a crime with Kamala Harris interview - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-cbs-60-minutes-interview-b2626525.html 

Your link is broken so folks cant read the nonsense you post. The picture is nice, looks like your Avatar, glad you want to be like Trump

[Will B Good]

2 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Your link is broken so folks cant read the nonsense you post. The picture is nice, looks like your Avatar, glad you want to be like Trump

Trump baselessly claims CBS committed a crime with Kamala Harris interview - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-cbs-60-minutes-interview-b2626525.html

[b17]

On 10/5/2024 at 10:34 AM, Yagoda said:

https://reason.com/2024/10/03/judge-stops-california-law-targeting-election-misinformation/

 

Those who support Kamala Harris obviously will support laws limiting speech. Democrats are for censorship, and every member of their party should be voted out.

If Democrats are for censorship, what are the Republicans for? I'll wait, but here are a few clues...alternative facts, gerrymandering, authoritarian leadership, destruction of democratic norms, locking up political opponents, denial of climate change, control of women's reproductive rights, ....ad infin. 

[Yagoda]

20 minutes ago, b17 said:

If Democrats are for censorship, what are the Republicans for? I'll wait, but here are a few clues...alternative facts, gerrymandering, authoritarian leadership, destruction of democratic norms, locking up political opponents, denial of climate change, control of women's reproductive rights, ....ad infin. 

Well lets see:

Gerrymandering? Dems dont do?

Destruction of Democratic Norms: Censorship regime, end the filibuster, pack the Supreme Court, Ignore Court Orders, Engage in Lawfare? Sounds like the Harris Regime.

Authoritorian Leadership: Harris regime executive orders

Denial of Climate Change: Use of weather variations as an excuse for Government control, thanks John Kerry

 

And so on, ad infinitum ad nauseum