BeegYoshi

and im taking the hat with me

It's not the same. Most people calling the 2016 election a sham will admit that Trump did technically win by the rules as written, but also think that those rules are bullshit because they allowed a multi-million person majority to be shut out in favor of a malevolent moron. The people saying Biden lost are saying he literally cheated and that there's a conspiracy of thousands of government employees collaborating to break the rules and subvert the will of the people; that the multi-million majority literally doesn't exist. This is just as disingenuous as comparing the top secret documents that Trump hid to the ones that Biden and Pence handed over immediately on request.

being justified or not has nothing to do with whether something is violent. if someone is getting hurt, maimed, or killed, that's violence, no matter how much they deserve it.

they just pop out of holes in the ground

Meta/Facebook and Google/Alphabet are very different from Twitter/X. The first two created parent companies under which their large brand names still exist, but are now managed along with their other properties (Instagram, ~~Snapchat~~, Waymo, Deepmind, etc.) Musk, meanwhile, is trying to completely burn down the Twitter brand for some incomprehensible reason.

Actually it's worse than nothing. Youtube promotes comments based on engagement, so while only an upvote increases the tally, voting at all still makes it more visible.

I got here after they announced the API changes. Took about a week for the reddit posts to slow down at all but they're back in full force now that the changes have been implemented.

It's just people discussing something that's relevant to them. It'll go away eventually.

A month or two ago I got a bunch of downvotes for explaining why I didn't like a game. The people responding said it was because my comment was "too long." It was like six sentences. Why are these people on Reddit instead of Twitter?

Why are you shifting this argument so far? I never claimed the guy had tourette's, and I never said this guy shouldn't be insitutionalized. This is a completely irrelevant example.

The point I'm making is that the "fire" is a classic example of speech that isn't protected in the US, but with this ruling there's no way to prove intent. So what if I sat down and continued watching the movie afterwards? I just got over the delusion. And someone with tourette's would probably apologize, try to calm people down, or even avoid a theater altogether. I'm pretty sure that someone with a peanut allergy can't sue a peanut farm if they go visit and sample the produce; if you know there's an extra danger for you specifically in performing an activity then you are responsible.

Not to mention tourette's could never cause targeted, violent, electronic-message based harassment either. This is a focused, intentional action.

Completely insane ruling. Wild that Kagan went across the aisle for this.

the First Amendment requires proofs of mental state

So I guess it's basically impossible to convict anyone of anything involving speech? If I yell "fire" in a crowded theater, how can you prove I wasn't having a delusion that there was a fire? Maybe there was an explosion in the movie and I was so immersed I thought it was real!

Dude had previous convictions and spent years doing this harassing, it's not like this was an isolated mental break. Truly insane.

It seems like a deliberate attempt to cause trouble and a federation debate to me. All that nonsense belongs on exploding-heads where it can be easily ignored