Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Ketanji Brown Jackson MISSES ENTIRE POINT Of The First Amendment: Matt Taibbi On SCOTUS Case" video.

  1. I'm being scents err d . . . here. It would be ironic if irony were still a thing.
    5
  2.  @stevezilla68  Except that it doesn't. The 13th Amendment allows federal prisons to extract labor from duly convicted inmates.
    4
  3.  @keithkinkelaar3334  You need to ask? It's terrible. It's not for the purpose of rehabilitation and fails to serve rehabilitation.
    2
  4. @aidananstey9848  Not what I said. The primary purpose of prison work for the incarcerated is rehabilitation. Taking responsibility for your own maintenance to the greatest extent possible is supposed to be rehabilitative, not remunerative. I see that occurred to you, finally. Exploitation only breeds resentment. The Thirteenth Amendment leaves the door open to exploitation. It says so itself.
    2
  5. Under what criminal statute? Violating someone's First Amendment rights, without more, is not a crime. Every case of government overreach does not result in criminal charges.
    1
  6. @nealorr5086  If the plaintiffs-respondents win this case, they will certainly have injunctive relief. A tort claim for damages seems farfetched, but an expert on current law would need to take a hard look and see whether any such case could be brought, against anyone. For most of those who wronged the plaintiffs, they probably can't be held liable at all, or, if their actions do rise to that level, they would be granted immunity in this case. If the Supreme Court entertains the government's argument, that means they didn't deliberately violate their oath. They had a good-faith belief they were upholding their oath, and happened to be wrong. That means immunity. Have you ever heard of anyone going to jail for violating someone's First Amendment rights? No, huh?
    1
  7.  @nealorr5086  They might let you see my reply, lol. As we discuss scents er ship. 😂
    1
  8. @nealorr5086  Where fid you find the dough to twist that pretzel?
    1
  9. Brie, WHY would it matter whether this was an "order?" The government is supposed to meet speech it does not like with MORE speech, not censorship. Why would the government go via a back door to tell social media this or that statement is a lie? They can announce it loud and clear, publicly. They can tell FB, Twitter/X, etc., that x, y, or z is false at the same time they tell ALL of us that x, y, or z is false.
    1
  10. Exactly. The government is supposed to meet speech it does not like with MORE speech, not censorship. Why would the government go via a back door to tell social media this or that statement is a lie? They can announce it loud and clear, publicly. They can tell FB, Twitter/X, etc., that x, y, or z is false at the same time that they tell ALL of us that x, y, or z is false. No "hamstring," no problem.
    1
  11. Exactly. The government is supposed to meet speech it does not like with MORE speech, not censorship. Why would the government go via a back door to tell social media this or that statement is a lie? They can announce it loud and clear, publicly. They can tell FB, Twitter/X, etc., that x, y, or z is false at the same time that they tell ALL of us that x, y, or z is false.
    1