Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "" video.

  1. First Amendment law is very, very highly developed. Read some cases, like Brandenburg v. Ohio and R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul. This case won't be decided on the basis of the oral argument. They got hundreds, if not thousands, of pages of briefs.
    3
  2. Don't worry so much. The categories of protected speech are very well defined. This will be decided on the briefs. They would have to throw out decades of First Amendment law to allow the government to censor by demanding social media take down protected speech.
    2
  3. 🤣 except not so funny anymore
    1
  4. The categories of unprotected speech are clear. The government is supposed to meet First Amendment-protected speech it does not like with MORE speech, not censorship in any form. Why would the government go via a back door to tell social media this or that statement is a danger or a lie? The government can announce it loud and clear, publicly. They can tell FB, Twitter/X, etc., that x, y, or z is false or dangerous, at the same time that they tell ALL of us that x, y, or z is false or dangerous. Kim, it won't be oral argument that decides THIS case, it will be the briefs.
    1
  5.  @williamrosales5718  All of this has been litigated countless times. Try reading.
    1
  6.  @williamrosales5718  Try reading. Supreme Court cases set the law. It's not about your experience. Or my experience. It's in that caselaw. That's, like, where it is.
    1
  7.  @williamrosales5718  That case struck down a law based on the content of speech OR expression. The laws against various acts of vandalism suffice to stop cross burning. So, painting a swastika or a BLM slogan on someone's private property ARE TREATED THE SAME. Good luck to you. You need it.
    1
  8.  @williamrosales5718  It wasn't a KKK case. It was some teenager.
    1