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

If an attorney decides to become a foreign agent and represent foreign governments, they should cease practicing law, meaning representing individuals. If they don't, then they will risk compromising client confidentiality and attorney-client privilege. Laughing off attorney-client privilege, like this report, does is a disgrace. That's not the problem.
1
@danielsoto8601 Er . . . There is this thing called irony. I bet you can look it up and everything, and find out what it's about.
1
@danielsoto8601 There is this thing people don't want you to know about called irony.
1
@danielsoto8601 As soon as I write i r o n y, everything gets dark.
1
@erincoco612 The First Amendment certainly does prohibit government from making hate speech illegal: Brandenburg v. Ohio Watts v. United States Virginia v. Black RAV v. City of St Paul It is absolutely settled law that you cannot criminalize even the most odious speech unless it constitutes a true threat of imminent harm or incites imminent violence. You can't even ban cross burning or calling for revolution unless it meets one of those criteria, evincing intent to cause an imminent breach of the peace or to intimidate a particular person or group of people who are present when you said it, or did it (for symbolic or expressive conduct). It's not a gray area. It is unconstitutional. The real question is, why don't you know? You should know.
1
@erincoco612 Sure, because absent the gag order, you can trash talk about a witness or juror. See how that works? If it were illegal, you wouldn't need the order in the first place.
1
@justinstephenson9360 I'm talking about the bill they passed, prohibiting certain speech. They are welcome to define things to their heart's content, and to deplore what they find worthy of being deplored --- that's free speech, too. Moreover, NO other country has the robust free speech rights that the United States has, enshrined in its constitution. So international standards are of no legal importance here. See, e.g., Nadine Strossen on that whole subject. This has nothing to do with whether one agrees with the speech they prohibited, or are trying to. Absolutely nothing.
1
@justinstephenson9360 I had a great-grandparent die in the Holocaust. I know about this stuff.
1
@erincoco612 You clearly haven't read anything. Right now, people are trying to hold BLM leadership liable for exactly that -- their rhetoric lead to riots, supposedly. Have you ever seen a Supreme Court case? Do you know they are all published?
1
@erincoco612 Because of Title VII. And because absent a union contract, an employer can usually fire anyone they want.
1
@erincoco612 Why don't you put down your phone and read about what "true threats" are? Do you know people are suing to try to hold Black Lives Matter responsible for riots and make them pay for the damage? You didn't hear about that? See, because rhetoric. Bad words.
1
@erincoco612 What do you think of the cases against organizers of the George Floyd protests? Plaintiffs are seeking money to pay for the damage from the riots. I think their speech was protected. The rioters, and the police, are responsible for their actions. The protests were protected by the First Amendment.
1
@erincoco612 You can be fired even if they believe you said it. You don't have to say it. Workers without unions have very few rights.
1
@erincoco612 I'm trying to inform you that people who organized protests after George Floyd are being sued now, because their free speech supposedly led to violence and property damage. I'm getting posts removed for that. I think the protests were fully protected speech and assembly. How about you?
1
@erincoco612 You see the category "hate speech" in that list? It's not a legal term. Remember the protests that took place in the summer of 2020? Some people are trying to hold the organizers liable for property damage, on the bogus theory that their protected speech led to riots.
1
@erincoco612 I'm being censored here, I'm going to stop. Hate speech is not one of the narrow categories you listed. It's a journalistic term, not a legal category.
1
@erincoco612 Some people call BLM "hate speech" and are suing them right now. See where such nonsense can go?
1
@erincoco612 I'm being repeatedly censored now. So I'm out of here.
1
@erincoco612 There is no amorphous category in the law called "hate speech." Your employer can prescribe your speech generally, while you're at work. That's nothing new, and has nothing to do with the First Amendment. Your boss isn't Congress, passing unconstitutional laws to control everyone.
1
@lindahammond7759 Please don't be. Just stay informed, take meticulous care of yourself, and be more prudent. You'll be fine. FWIW, I've had to eat perfectly, exercise, and so forth, because I was born with a heart murmur. You can do it! The information on anti-inflammatory diets and so forth is out there.
1
@jmacaulay4406 ABC News interviewed the mastermind of the terrorist cell that committed the Beslan school seige and massacre. That's what journalists do. When Russia protested, the US State Department told them we have a First Amendment.
1
Does anyone have a list of all the people who have perished like this, at the hands of police? No one could remember this, there are too many, and it doesn't stop. We need a written list. Make it visible.
1
@OfftoShambala That prediction was an incorrect translation of a quote from the eminent French virologist, Luc Montagnier, who was the first to discover the HIV. He won the Nobel Prize in 2008. He was skeptical of the origin story of the COVID virus, and felt certain it was engineered in some respect, he was leery of the vaccines, and he supported trying various off-label treatments that were banned here. But he never said that people would drop dead en masse within two years. He was critical enough of the response, no need to exaggerate.
1
@raymondblake5765 Which study is that? I have been keeping up, and have heard of no such study. We only barely have two years since the first vaccines were administered, and those were reserved for the oldest and most vulnerable. As for Luc Montagnier, he was against the rush to vaccinate but he never said that people were likely to be dropping dead left and right. I'm with Montagnier, by the way. I didn't get vaccinated because my concerns were never addressed. There was more than one way to avoid the more dangerous variants, and the current variants are simply not as dangerous as the COVID that emerged in January 2020. The first to contract it were the unlucky ones, as is generally the case with a new virus. Getting vaccines and refusing vaccines both carry risks. Informed consent should be the watchword. It wasn't. That worries me more than the vast number of viral illnesses we might come in contact with.
1
@beewalk34 Trump was telling people to get the vaccine. He is bragging that he is responsible for it, because he is the one who oversaw Operation Warp Speed, and the libs are trying to steal credit away from him for his accomplishment. Get your talking points straight.
1
@beewalk34 clicky blocky goody bye bye
1
@athleticguy15 Dr. Fauci has admitted prevaricating about masks. He does not come across as frank. The public health officials in my state (who happened to be women) were far better. One of them did a mini-class on statistical reasoning for the public. Fauci's routine smacks of authoritarianism and showman-light, like he's been affected by spending too much time with Trump.
1
They tolerate vaccine mandates, mass surveillance, colonies of homeless, human feces in the street, and evidence of genocide in a war they are arming.
1
Of course most Russians are Eurasian. And? Asian-looking blue-eyed people trigger you much?
1
I expect they will be sued.
1
@@user-ov7nq3wr2n No. It needs to be sued. This supervisor was repeatedly reported. They understand money, don't they? Every political side's money is green.
1
The stupidity is par for the course.
1
People who have been against flu shots since 1976 die from the flu all the time. No one mocks them, or believes a flu shot would have been sure to save them. I oppose politicians pushing or opposing any medical treatment, including the woman who died. She was not a doctor. Let the real doctors speak.
1
Imagine. If you call something a "vaccine," it magically becomes safe, effective, and life-saving. This is called Science. The label itself has politicized the issue. The fact that this new type of "vaccine" has some key features of a traditional, proven vaccine does not mean it will have any of the other, desirable features, of a vaccine. It's not clear this should be called a vaccine, rather than immunotherapy or some other thing.
1
@sandralewis2050 Well, my parents met in a refugee camp, and I have volunteered to take in Ukrainian refugees if needed, so this cheap rhetoric and call for escalation (to sound pretty on television?) is repulsive to me. How many veterans are you close to? I don't know one who would be so irresponsible. Have you all lost it?
1
@sandralewis2050 You are talking about escalating a war. You have no idea of what you are concretely talking about. Of COURSE I'm not going to support your delirium, because that is what it is. Get a grip. "Pitiful, pathetic, resiliency, courage, democracy" --- these are just words to you at this moment. They help no one, and have no bearing on anything that can bring actual peace, which needs to come now. Get a GRIP.
1
@sandralewis2050 Every week, people prove to be even crazier than I thought they were. I expected hitting new lows to end when Trump finally left. Well, I still have hope. I guess recovery will take time.
1
@Mas_zeppelin Find a new sports bar.
1