General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

L.W. Paradis
The Rational National
comments

Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Mother Of 3 Jailed Over Anger At Health Insurance Company" video.

@smirky101 It wasn't a "death threat." Basic First Amendment law. VERY basic. Hyperbole is not a true threat. Gross rudeness is, in general, protected speech. It has to have something more wrong with it to be unprotected. The First Amendment is important. Spending a few dollars on it is hardly irrational.
24
@smirky101 I think for a person to be able to spare five bucks but not 50,000 bucks kinda . . . makes sense, no?
23
@christheghostwriter Has anyone EVER read a Supreme Court case? A true threat cannot be vague. If it is vague, it is not a true threat. Whether or not you care is about your fee fees.
18
@therationalnational To think Blue Cross hasn't dropped its request for charges to be brought, now that they know it was simply rudeness, not a "threat." What whimps.
16
@cropcircle5693 It's not a true threat, but names of Supreme Court cases . . . Um, guess? Just take a WILD guess . . .
10
 @Heckatomba THANK YOU I hope the cases I cited are a good start, if I'm allowed to post that!
9
@christheghostwriter Re: your last paragraph I thought of that myself. I shouldn't be doing this for free. All the aftereffects of the pandemic haven't been shed yet, which is why I'm still commenting. (Needless to say, I never joined Facebook, Twitter, etc., under any name -- or this platform, before the shutdowns.) My license is in California, not Florida. Look, it's plain that you don't know the law. What does distress me is that First and Fourth Amendment rights are being undermined drastically, from all corners. Maybe you should stop and think about whether you want to be a part of that. Forget about me, lol. This is bigger than the both of us.
9
@bluebee5266 Sadly, no. You give BCBS too much credit. Now they are wasting our tax dollars.
8
@cruzintheraw There are laws against harassing people, restraining order or not. Look at it in terms you would grasp: can we stalk CEOs with impunity? Or do strange people showing up at their homes get detained for questioning? Now do you see?
6
@jwill9237 He made immense profits and built multigenerational wealth by breaching contracts with the most vulnerable policyholders, during the worst moments of their lives, exactly when their very lives were in the balance. The more contracts breached, the more UHC made. This is lost on anyone?
5
@christheghostwriter And how do you think such cases end up at the Supreme Court? Everyone along the line insisted on prosecuting them. Only the Court itself reversed.
5
@Johnfisher12345 Not in 2020. He even gave Fauci et al. a presidential commendation. Every president cost me money and did me harm.
4
@jwill9237 OH GOOD. We made you say it. Doctors save lives. No insurance company ever saved a life. It honored its contracts, or made money by dishonoring them. I just showed my lawyer chops -- got you to reveal your true thoughts! This was unexpected.
4
@lordalpacas6464 💯 👏👏👏👏👏👏
4
@newbieprepper8451 "Empty threats" are protected speech.
3
@GarySpace-m3c Absolute immunity for judicial acts.
3
@christheghostwriter LOL, are you L1? Haven't gotten to the section on true threats yet?
3
@christheghostwriter Oh I see. You've never read any cases. 🤣 Of course. We see that. I was kidding about L1.
3
@christheghostwriter BTW, blocked.
3
@midwestlawyer Thanks. If I name Supreme Court cases, my post is immediately removed. "Ponder that," as they say.
3
@MrRezRising No. It also has to be intended as a threat.
2
@christheghostwriter It will get dismissed. That's what will happen. Unless they can get her to bargain down to a misdemeanor and ding her for $10k. That might work. Has anyone here ever read a First Amendment case? Too bad naming them gets canceled! The irony . . .
2
@christheghostwriter The Supreme Court has stated that First Amendment law is not a treatise on good manners. No, they really said that, in a trademark case, where a rude trademark (music group name) was illegally rejected.
2
@MadeOfQuestions You've misstated the law. Statutes against cross burning that did not require the state to establish criminal intent have been struck down as violating our right to free speech and expression. Laws against swearing at police are nonexistent. Obstructing an officer in the performance of his duties is another matter.
2
@jwill9237 This isn't a true threat.
2
@TheCaptainSlappy Why don't you look up what a true threat sounds like, and see what convictions have been reversed, on much stronger words, directed even against a President?
2
@TheCaptainSlappy There is a lovely website maintained by the Library of Congress called Constitution Annotated. You could spend some time looking around the First Amendment pages. See how strong and angry political speech can get, and still be legally protected. I can appreciate why some people disagree with the First Amendment. I support it fully.
2
@MrRezRising The posters are irrelevant. They cannot make what she said illegal.
2
@jwill9237 No, it's not. Read some cases concerning true threats. (Quoting from them is usually censored. So much for the pragmatics of free speech.) The most natural interpretation of what she said was a warning: don't push this. You're abusing us, and people are angry. "What comes around goes around."
2
@TheCaptainSlappy "I have already received my draft classification as 1-A, and I have got to report for my physical this Monday . . . I am not going. If they ever make me carry a rifle, the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J." Was this a true threat against President Johnson? It was a real case, and the man said it in Washington DC, in front of a small group of people. Guess the outcome.
2
@smirky101 We know you aren't into reading law books, but you could at least skim the thread. Happy Sunday, lol.
2
@mushroomsteve ALWAYS
2
😂😂😂😂😂😂 I really did lol.
2
@jwill9237 There is no law against expressing your emotions in an immature way. "She let her emotions get the best of her" is an admission that what she said was NOT a threat.
2
@elisedemerveilles3065 It was not a true threat. It was protected political speech. Blue Cross Blue Shield is at fault, for not dropping charges after she was investigated and determined to be totally innocuous. Health insurers costing us money yet again. What a surprise. They just can't get enough.
1
"Pre-crime??" Oh this should be fun.
1
 @newbieprepper8451 Not a true threat. Brandenburg v. Ohio. RAV v. City of St Paul. If we don't defend our rights, we will lose them.
1
 @newbieprepper8451 No she won't.
1
@MrRezRising No Supreme Court case name has swear words in it that I know of.
1
@MrRezRising Blocked for lying.
1
@christheghostwriter Yes I do. I'm a civil rights lawyer. The First Amendment is one of my specialties. The judge I worked for is quoted for her First Amendment opinions in the very finest legal literature. Have. You. Ever. Read. A. Case? Or a book? How about a book? Let' go for book.
1
@christheghostwriter If I do name cases that are on point, the post will not appear. You don't find THAT dusturbing?
1
@markruhland3035 The person you are addressing (1) does not know First Amendment law; and (2) is remarkably persuasive. I admit I'm impressed.
1
@christheghostwriter And how do YOU think these cases got to the Supreme Court? Everyone along the line signed off on prosecuting them. You are outstanding at sounding like you know something. I'm sure you could persuade many people that you're the expert, not I. This is nothing new. Plato's Gorgias comes to mind.
1
@newbieprepper8451 This is what the snowflakes did to us. I knew this nonsense could only go south.
1
@MadeOfQuestions Wikipedia is not a treatise on contemporary First Amendment law. 🤣
1
 @Crawling-Chaos-2024 true
1
 @mushroomsteve They immediately r-mov- the names of Supreme Court cases. Not links, names. That's the world we live in!
1
 @mushroomsteve You at least got to point that out.
1
 @mushroomsteve Names of SCOTUS cases re A1 are __________. Yeah. THAT bad.
1
 @mushroomsteve I can't even s a y t. Ha t m u ch.
1
@mushroomsteve Try naming a case. Just try.
1
@DarkEmpress925 You are correct. The law is clear. This was not a true threat. Much, much stronger and more specific language has been held to be protected speech. Why is there now a small handful of people who want to erode our most basic civil rights?
1
@jwill9237 Not a true threat that can be criminalized consistent with our Bill of Rights. As you know by now.
1
@jwill9237 Blocked from my notifications for wasting my time. 😂
1
@Scoobystyle Thank you 🙏
1
@Scoobystyle I appreciate why BCBS reported her, and why they wanted police to check it out. That's reasonable. But now that they KNOW she isn't a threat, why are they still pressing charges? It's a civil matter: drop her from coverage, sue her for intentional infliction of emotional distress of your customer service rep, and leave the criminal justice aparratus out of it. That is the most they could do. But instead . . . this?? Wow, just wow. "Merry Christmas."
1
@lindanorris2455 Judges have absolute immunity for judicial acts.
1
@christheghostwriter You could have said judges have absolute immunity for judicial acts. No, wait. You couldn't. 🤣
1
@isthatyoursomnomnom An apology? No. That never happens.
1
@cruzintheraw Oh! You've never read a First Amendment case, either! But you want to see objectively innocent Americans locked up. That's sweet.
1
@TheCaptainSlappy You mean, all the intelligent posts are from Russians? So, it's not just health care that's in shambles. Education, too. Just kidding. Educated Americans exist. Believe it.
1
@jayclark2077 Court is open in America. And judges enjoy absolute immunity for their judicial acts. Something worse than a mere mistake of law has to happen for them to be removed from the bench, but in states where they are elected, you can challenge them in the next election.
1
@midwestlawyer Her mind. The judge is a woman.
1
@midwestlawyer Now that it is crystal clear that she was merely rude, and not threatening anyone, why doesn't BCBS ask that charges be dropped? Not only do they corrupt the politicians, they also waste our tax dollars -- on this. Lovely.
1
@JP_Names 💯
1
@stanallport6746 🤣🤣🤣
1
@elisedemerveilles3065 Because the evidence is unequivocal: her words were sheer hyperbole and political speech. INFORM YOURSELF on just how bad speech and expression of this nature can be, and still be First Amendment protected.
1
@suek.3448 We know what she said -- the whole statement. YOU don't know First Amendment law. I guarantee you do not. The media has you clutching your pearls about "hate speech," which is not a legal category of unprotected speech. Not at all. You are the one who was fooled by the media.
1
@debbiesittard7653 Having to work overtime to counter all the snowflake nonsense.
1
@suek.3448 Of course we know her whole statement, and you are flat-out wrong. Maybe correct statements of free speech law are getting disappeared again.
1
@midwestlawyer Those who know the law and the facts -- censored again. :/
1