Comments by "Debany Doombringer" (@debanydoombringer1385) on "Attorney General DEMANDS Censorship From Youtube, Rumble, Twitter \u0026 Gets Told To Pound Sand!" video.

The Supreme Court agrees.
2
That's illegal. I'd start cussing and shouting stuff daring them to arrest me. I did it when towns still had blasphemy laws and I'm not afraid to do it again. Edit: You'll get a warning. After that you comply. Then do it again every day and repeat the process or every couple of days. Eventually people will see you're not being arrested and they'll stop complying.
1
An attempt to implement the idea of hate speech has been around before they started pushing it on social media. The Obama administration refused to give a copy right to a music group called the Slants. The government said it was a slur and hate speech. The group is guys of Asians. The Supreme Court ruled there's no such thing as hate speech. That was the second case of that phrase that the Supreme Court had ruled on. So no, it's not about fines. It's about controlling speech. Edit: Look into what was revealed by FOIA requests about the failed Disinformation board. They had prosecution authority. It was to prosecute people that weren't following the government approved narrative. It's not about fines. The government tried similar stuff with telephone companies back in the day.
1
It's sad that we now have to have several organizations to defend our rights because the ACLU no longer does. I also can't believe the laws and ordinances my generation fought to get removed that violated our 1st Amendment speech are now being implemented again, only far more restrictive, by the next generations. This attorney general also, according to the articles, is trying to fight against the Missouri v Biden case where the court has forbid the federal government from having contact with social media companies because of the censorship they did during the pandemic. These people are evil.
1
It doesn't matter if it can be defined. It violates free speech guaranteed by the 1st Amendment. That's not an opinion, it's a Supreme court decision.
1
That violates another court ruling that prevents the ban of government officials. That case is important because it's basically saying social media is the public square and constituents need to have access to their public officials. They can ban their private account, but not the official government one.
1
The thing that people misunderstand about you do you was it always meant in the privacy of your own home or private property. It never meant that society had to accept you. Tolerance just means I won't cause you physical harm. It doesn't mean I accept your behavior. It's not tolerance anymore because we reached that. Now it's moved to acceptance which was never part of the deal.
1