Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "CBS Evening News" channel.

  1.  @unicorntrooper226  He told the truth. That is what he is supposed to do.
    1
  2.  @alexscarboro6786  It's not irrelevant because Rittenhouse was carrying illegally. But for that I blame the adults who put him in this position.
    1
  3.  @AsteriaRiselta  Are you all this crazy? Good to know. Don't be shocked at the next mass shooting, or the one after that, or the one after that . . . .
    1
  4.  @rec-reation9620  Irrelevant. Rittenhouse was underage and should not have been armed.
    1
  5.  @AsteriaRiselta  You are praising an underage, high school dropout shooter who came to the Kenosha riots carrying an enormous weapon. Can you be serious? You aren't just saying he shouldn't be convicted. You're saying he saved lives. Yes. Crazy.
    1
  6.  @rec-reation9620  That concerns law enforcement. That concerns the National Guard. That doesn't concern underaged kids being armed and groomed by vigilantes, and then abandonned as soon as something (very predictably) goes wrong.
    1
  7.  @rec-reation9620  I don't agree with the law that Rittenhouse is being charged with violating. It MANDATES treating juveniles as adults. I oppose these laws. He was a minor. He never finished junior year in high school. This case will not change MY mind.
    1
  8.  @vivianspinarski4846  There was a reasonable suspicion at the time that it was about to become a mass shooting. But never mind. Who cares? If you don't, I don't.
    1
  9.  @rec-reation9620 Law enforcement is the job of law enforcement. Self-defense is an imperfect defense if the person himself contributed to the circumstances that led to his need to use deadly force. Big "if." Not just the law, but obvious. Common sense. I have no opinion on how this case should turn out, other than being opposed to trying this kid as as adult. I know what I'd do to the adults that put him up to it!
    1
  10.  @rec-reation9620  NO ONE can claim complete self-defense IF they helped create the conditions that made their use of deadly force necessary TO defend themselves. You forgot that little causal connection. You don't know how to read a statute. Of course if a person is shoplifting a loaf of bread they do not have to let the store security guard stomp them, choke them, or shoot them. DUH.
    1
  11.  @frankmarano1118  AMEN.
    1
  12.  @AsteriaRiselta  Like I said. Crazy.
    1
  13.  @AsteriaRiselta  They have got you taking sides in this! Wow! 🤣🤣🤣
    1
  14.  @vivianspinarski4846  Whoosh Okay. No worries.
    1
  15.  @vivianspinarski4846  I'll be honest with you all right: decided in 2019 to emigrate by 2025. Will be moving that date up. There, that's honest. I didn't need 2020 to convince me. I already knew.
    1
  16.  @vivianspinarski4846  Who is? Weirdos one and all.
    1
  17.  @vivianspinarski4846 You think your relatives defended MY rights? Nope. My father and my uncle were fighting the actual Hitler before Americans showed up, and yet the US bombed what little is left of my family with depleted uranium. I owe you nothing. So much for mindless emotional appeals. I didn't support the endless regime-change wars. I didn't vote to support them, ever.
    1
  18.  @vivianspinarski4846 You bomb a LOT of people. People tend not to like that. Putting down your arms, and your glorification of armed violence, might be a new idea to try out. Just to see how it goes. For fun.
    1
  19.  @vivianspinarski4846  BTW, Rittenhouse dropped out before COVID, and school continued online. So his poor interpersonal skills at school would have made no difference. Same goes for GED. He just needed to apply himself.
    1
  20.  @AsteriaRiselta  WHO IS DEFENDING THEM? Furthermore, NO media has pointed out that the law mandating that juveniles be tried as adults is fundamentally unjust. But I'm saying it. That's because I can still think for myself. You're just fooled into "taking sides."
    1
  21.  @divawendy  Was it also "self-defense" against Richard McGinnis, the video producer from the conservative new outlet who just missed getting shot, when Rittenhouse, being the KID that he is, fired recklessly? Was that "self-defense," too? McGinnis had already done a neutral/mildly favorable report on Rittenhouse earlier that day, and was in the vicinity because he sensed trouble.
    1
  22. ​ @headlightfluid7965 "Hate speech" most certainly IS First Amendment protected. There is no general category of "hate speech" that can be punished consistent with the First Amendment. True threats and incitement of violence are narrowly defined. See Brandenburg v. Ohio; see RAV v. City of St. Paul. Even cross burning and swastikas cannot be banned.
    1
  23. ​ @annabodot962 It has nothing to do with that "fire in a crowded theatre" slogan. Political speech, even odious political speech, cannot be banned consistent with the First Amendment. Well, I found out a couple of years ago that our bosses and politicians thought it was fine to coerce us to take a EUA experimental drug. Now I get to revel in the joy of finding out no one knows what American free speech principles are. The Fourth Amendment is dead, knew that part already.
    1
  24.  @kevindavis5966  That's not the law of true threats and incitement to violence. Those are very narrowly defined exceptions. Read Brandenburg v. Ohio. Read RAV v. St. Paul. Do it for yourself. Don't let people grab your emotions and dupe you.
    1
  25.  @mikemartinez654  So-called "hate speech" IS generally protected speech under the First Amendment. Who persuaded you differently?? I bet half my posts explaining it are mysteriously gone.
    1
  26.  @ori0n9r0jekt  Who is killing whom? At some Ivy League school? "Oh no, words are violence, I need a safe space and a comfort dog."
    1
  27.  @kevindavis5966  No they don't qualify as unprotected speech. Even burning a cross (not to mention a flag) has been upheld as protected speech, repeatedly. Try some reading. RAV v. City of St. Paul should be your go-to place to start
    1
  28. @matthewmiller6568  Those chants are protected. As for "targeting Jewish businesses," that is vague. Who did what to whom, when, how? Who do you think you can punish for that? The perpetrators, or can you invent new culpable people? During the George Floyd demonstrations, were people who protested peacefully responsible for those who burned and looted? On January 6, were those who protested peacefully responsible for the would-be insurrectionists?
    1
  29. @josie_the_valkyrie  Have you followed the story? If a peaceful protester can be punished because someone else broke a law, how is that freedom? Any provocateur can jump in and get anyone else arrested.
    1
  30. @thethpian  Thought crimes aren't real. "Hateful" intent is protected if the speech itself is protected. You're confusing this with grounds for divorce. 🤣
    1
  31. @thethpian  There is no such category of unprotected speech in the law, no. The phrase itself is not brilliant, he's right.
    1
  32.  @masercot  Full FDA approval for a drug requires an in-depth analysis of data. And yet, even fully approved drugs end up withdrawn, or with "black box" warnings. Everyone I know who is waiting for more information has had injuries from drugs, or a member of their family did -- serious injuries, not trivial. Everyone I know got all their other vaccines as recommended. I've heard of anti-vaxxers but never met one personally.
    1
  33.  @masercot  It doesn't concern you that health has been politicized to this degree? You don't see this in other countries.
    1
  34. They have these positions, and have ZERO knowledge of free speech law, and ZERO ability to communicate, and ZERO knowledge of the history of their own institutions. What a disgrace.
    1
  35.  @assaf  I have an idea. Look up Brandenburg v. Ohio and see what speech is First Amendment protected. You can find a summary on Oyez and a one-page analysis on Legal Information Institute. We can start there. Then see what the Title VII workplace harassment rules say. This body of law will inform the standards of conduct on campus as well, though not exactly. The campus is a forum where demonstrations can take place and work, in general, is not. More speech is protected at university. But that gives no one a right to bully or harass or torment anyone else. Why didn't these university presidents explain this to the members of Congress? That's their job to explain it, when Congress calls them in, even if the hearing was grandstanding.
    1
  36. And it was Israel that confirmed it. The US noticed and prevaricated ("well, maybe it would have happened anyway").
    1
  37. The people who got that were treated for up to 4 days in the hospital, using the same protocol they use when COVID causes it. The story is they are recovering faster than the COVID cases of heart inflammation did. As far as they can tell. :/
    1
  38.  @justinm1200  It's never acceptable, but it is often First Amendment protected speech. If a university chooses to embrace the full panoply of First Amendment freedoms, then there are times when odious speech will not be subject to any discipline.
    1
  39. Whatever you may think of his policies, which were not beyond reproach, he was the last fully qualified president we have had.
    1
  40.  @sharonharris9782  Reagan Bush I Clinton Bush II Obama Trump Biden The only other veteran (and the only other president who was not an obvious phony) was neither independent, nor self-made. In fact, he was CIA. To weep, seriously. A remarkable fact, Carter once worked on a disabled reactor and had to expose himself to radiation to do it. He was called in for the purpose. (To think he is pushing 100! Not that that part matters.) I value those sorts of things. I want to see them prove themselves when it matters.
    1
  41.  @sharonharris9782  I think we agree on that. :)
    1
  42.  @justinm1200  When the Supreme Court said that a First Amendment forum tolerates that, and more. Since Brandenburg, RAV v St. Paul, the Westboro Baptist Church case. Since then. Chemerinsky wrote a book about all that. So did Nadine Strossen. You've heard of books? College students still sometimes read them.
    1
  43. @badmofaux  Nor is the outrage directed at these three --- though they were so dim and inarticulate that it's infuriating.
    1
  44. @astrobullivant5908  Is it "kind" and "lenient" to lose a kid? Maybe some people just bend, get all spiritual, start gratitude journaling, etc., but I assure you that no one living in France is like that, irrespective of ethnic origin.
    1
  45. Investigated for what? You want to remove private universities from private hands and nationalize them?
    1
  46. It never is justifiable. It could still be speech protected by the First Amendment. A lot of immoral speech is. That they could not explain the scope and limits of free speech at university tells you everything. They don't care about free speech. Why should they bother to learn about it and defend it properly?
    1
  47. She resigned. That forecloses a suit.
    1
  48.  @johnsmith7140  Oh wow, lol. Easy job. 🤣
    1
  49.  @sellmav  She doesn't know 1/10 of the First Amendment law I do. I was flabbergasted. She is supposed to know it and defend it with passion. Well. Okay. Silly me.
    1
  50. ​ @sellmav This is generally true, but unless they study First Amendment law, or at least watch Glenn Greenwald for a while, they won't know. It's a specialized field of law, and you can't always rely on intuition. The real disgrace is that these university presidents can't explain free speech. They never learned it. They don't care about it.
    1