(04-02-2024 03:04 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-01-2024 05:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  If you don’t see the significant parallels between my hypos and hers, you have a serious comprehension issue.

lol...

Your arrogance and hypocrisy on full display.

No matter how significant the parallels, they are not the same... and yet you try and chastise ME for not responding directly to HER hypothetical? It was you who took us off course. If you weren't so frequently a pedantic twit, I could let that slide... but I won't. You earned this derision.

Yep there is such a massive difference between Logan Paul urging people on mass social media to act in a manner that might kill them and some unnamed person urging people on mass social media to act in a manner that might kill them.

Massive difference there.

Only in Hamworld.

Such a massive difference between talking about troop movements on mass social media during a time, had you read, that put lives into danger and some unnamed person urging people on mass social media to act in a manner that put their own lives in danger.

Another massive difference there.

Again only in Hamworld.

Quote:

Quote:The problem with you Ham, is if someone doesn’t repeat what you say syllable for syllable, you ***** and fing scream about their lying.

Lol... You're such a victim

You lied, Tanq. Clear as day.

You said that I didn't support something that I quite obviously do. That's not 'repeating syllable for syllable', but a clear misrepresentation of the truth, aka a lie.

You support the plaintiffs position that the government may not (absent a finding on court in your version) intervene in suggesting that the speech should be curtailed. In that manner, you to some extent support such speech to be free and easy, contrary to MBs comments and questions.

Nuff said. In that manner, you support the idea that the government may not suggest a restraint by request to the SM site for her question, and for my hypos by extension.

Maybe next time try some context. Or do your famous whiny fing cry about everyone simply lying.

I’m really fing sorry you didn’t know the context of even KBs question at the outset. It tends to help. Whereas general bloviating as you did at the outset with zero idea what the specific question was in reference to many times does not tend to help.

Quote: You are literally arguing simultaneously that I am 'wrong' that 'disclosing troop movements during a time of war is a crime' and then arguing that I 'don't support government intervention to stop people from disclosing troop movements during a time of war.'

.

See the above comment Ham

Quote:

Quote:Seriously, everyone here knows that the govt has some power in regulating speech. I’m not ignoring it —- it’s too trivial of a basic point to address. The issue isn’t that —- the issue is *where* and *how* that application is appropriate.

Now you're just copying what I've said all along... literally from post 1

Simply because you ***** and moan that I did not note that, mind you. Now you whine and ***** about me stating it. Awesome. lol.

Quote:What you leave off is her example where she has declared a form of a 'state of emergency' as a result of idiots on the internet.

What you leave off is that in her example no emergency has been declared, and *can* the government do so. That is what the first offshoot of the plaintiffs stance is.

Do you know the difference between *asking* *CAN* the government do that, and assuming that is has happened. Her question is clear —- under the circumstance in the hypo, CAN the government step in.

No, I didn’t leave it off. I’m simply reasking the question.

Here is here exact words:

Quote:Suppose somebody started posting about a new teen challenge that involves teens jumping out of windows at increasing elevations. This is the challenge. And kids all over the country start doing this. There is an epidemic. Children are seriously injuring or even killing themselves in situations. Is it your view that the government authorities could not declare those circumstances a public emergency and encourage social media platforms to take down the information that is instigating this problem?

Italicized is the predicate hypo. Note what you now claim is int the hypo is a question. I'll underline it. That is "Could the authorities declare a national emergency" when you take out the double negatives.

You do understand the difference between a hypo, and asking *what* a government has the power to do, right? Maybe not based on your latest tact regarding that exchange.

The question asked is not the hypo, my friend. That is, if I say 'If X, then Y'? -- Y is not the hypo. X is. Rudimentary stuff my friend.

Quote:I'm sorry, but while I am perfectly fine with the government suggesting that the website take down that post and others like it, I do not in any way see how you get from 'daring people to jump out of windows at increasing heights' to some sort of 'national emergency' that justifies a suspension of our FIRST amendment right. The FIRST item listed in an articulated effort to ' extend(ing) the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Your personal choice, cant comment on that. Yet denoting where troops are is not perfectly fine, in the situation that their lives are in danger. That position runs absolutely counter to that you noted above, mind you.

Quote:THAT was her hypothetical that you keep ignoring...

Actually THAT was a question. NOT a hypothetical. A pretty big difference. My predicate, and my hypo are in line with hers. You seemingly incorporate the question being asked as the predicate. Oopsie for you.

But please keep telling us that her 'hypothetical' included a declared emergency. Maybe if you say that a million or more so times it will magically change the difference between a question being asked, and the predicate being used for the question.

Quote:But more, as I specifically said to your 'danger' comment... if THAT is where you set the bar, then suddenly the second amendment is easily off the table, because guns are inherently dangerous.

Oh goodie, back to cookie cutter barn wide comments that dont include any substance of the 2nd amendment in them -- fun fun fun.

Quote:So you can ***** and moan like a $2 hooker about my rabbit trails, but I have been consistent. It's not my fault that you arrogantly insisted that I respond to YOUR hypotheticals as opposed to hers.

Coming from the guy that mistakes hypothetical predicates for the question baeing asked, that above comment is stunningly funny and rich. Lol.

(04-02-2024 04:04 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Yep there is such a massive difference between Logan Paul urging people on mass social media to act in a manner that might kill them and some unnamed person urging people on mass social media to act in a manner that might kill them.

Massive difference there.

Only in Hamworld.

No, dipshit. You left off the 'declaration of an emergency' that was present in her hypo.

You act like they were meaninglessly different... yet you leave off perhaps the most meaningful detail.

Quote:Such a massive difference between talking about troop movements on mass social media during a time, had you read, that put lives into danger and some unnamed person urging people on mass social media to act in a manner that put their own lives in danger.

Another massive difference there.

Again only in Hamworld.

Time of war, dipshit. And you ultimately relented and noted that you saw the same 'power' as a result.

Quote:You support the plaintiffs position....

Stop right there liar. I never once supported the plaintiff's position. Hearing voices again.

Lie
Lie
Lie

All I said was that the 1st amendment absolutely and by design specifically serves to hamstring the government... and noted that there were clear exceptions.... and 'states of emergency' was one of them I noted.

Quote:Maybe next time try some context. Or do your famous whiny fing cry about everyone simply lying.

Not everyone. Just you. Demonstrably and in black and white. Deflect all you want, you're a liar.

This too (where I support the plaintiff's position) is another demonstrable lie, but not as egregious as the other one. This one you are simply responding to the voices in your head and not something I mentioned at all.

You assumed... with ZERO proof.

Quote:

Quote: You are literally arguing simultaneously that I am 'wrong' that 'disclosing troop movements during a time of war is a crime' and then arguing that I 'don't support government intervention to stop people from disclosing troop movements during a time of war.'

.

See the above comment Ham

FFS, Tanq. Just admit it.

Quote:And yet you whine and ***** about me not repeating it. Awesome. lol.

Another lie.

I ***** about you ignoring it and assigning all sorts of things I never said instead... like 'supporting the plaintiff'.

Quote:What you leave off is that in her example no emergency has been declared, and *can* the government do so. That is what the first offshoot of the plaintiffs stance is.

Now you're just making things up because your ego can't handle the truth.

Quote:Do you know the difference between *asking* *CAN* the government do that, and assuming that is has happened. Her question is clear —- under the circumstance in the hypo, CAN the government step in.

The cause of the state of emergency is immaterial. The question is, can the government declare a state of emergency? Of course they can... and when they do... the government has all sorts of power that they don't otherwise have.... including the power to regulate speech.

Said that all along... quit lying as if I haven't.


That said, Is that REALLY a realistic hypothetical? Or does it open the door to things like with some 50,000 people/yr dying from guns, declaring guns to be a danger such that 2nd amendment rights can be infringed? DANGER was an ill defined word that YOU added... and I responded to.

The plaintiff didn't raise that issue. He essentially said that the government can't declare such an emergency. I obviously disagree. I just don't think she gave a good example of something that would reach that level... and neither did you.

Wartime is a good example.... fairly easily defined.... usually involving troops and bombs. A Pandemic is a good example... fairly easily defined.... usually involving a fast moving, deadly disease. Kids dying from a dare? How many kids and why do they keep doing it?? Why are our kids so stupid and why can't we convince them that it hurts to hit the ground from 20+ feet??

She just assumed that 'kids jumping out of windows' got to 'whatever' level accomplished that. Can the government do that? Of course they can. Nobody else has the power to declare a state of emergency. That is self-evident.

Just overall a really poor hypothetical. Maybe that's why the plaintiff gave such a poor response.

How bad does something have to be to declare a state of emergency? She never asked nor addressed that.

If we ever get to that point where the 'least restrictive' way to keep kids from jumping out of windows is to restrict free speech, 'free speech' is going to be among our lesser concerns.

Watch the movie 'idiocracy'. That is the sort of world where kids keep jumping out of windows and dying creating a national emergency... and that sure as eff isn't Hamworld.

(04-02-2024 04:04 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:But more, as I specifically said to your 'danger' comment... if THAT is where you set the bar, then suddenly the second amendment is easily off the table, because guns are inherently dangerous.

Oh goodie, back to cookie cutter barn wide comments that dont include any substance of the 2nd amendment in them -- fun fun fun.

You edited this after I responded, but it needs to be responded to.

Here is what you posted her saying...

Quote:Suppose somebody started posting about a new teen challenge that involves teens jumping out of windows at increasing elevations. This is the challenge. And kids all over the country start doing this. There is an epidemic. Children are seriously injuring or even killing themselves in situations. Is it your view that the government authorities could not declare those circumstances a public emergency and encourage social media platforms to take down the information that is instigating this problem?

Something like 50,000 people die a year from guns in the US.... and without substantial changes to CRIMINAL enforcement, I don't see that number meaningfully changing. If 50,000 kids were dying from jumping out of windows each year with no end in sight, I could see that being described as an epidemic... a national emergency... so why couldn't an oppressive government determine gun deaths to be a national emergency? We could declare obesity a national emergency and suspend people's rights to eat ice cream. Thank God for Joe on that one.

You can be obtuse and not see the connection between the power of the government to suspend speech in response to a declaration of 'emergency' because of 50k deaths a year... and the power of the government to suspend gun ownership in response to a declaration of 'emergency' because of 50k deaths a year... or the power of government to compel medical treatment in response to a declaration of 'emergency' because of 50k deaths a year...

but just because you don't see it that way doesn't make it a reasonable concern... One that the plaintiff didn't articulate at all and while you may scoff at it, you cannot rationally argue against it.

Let me be very clear.
I honestly can't imagine a world where significant numbers of people are jumping out of windows on a dare with no end in sight, but in such a world, absolutely the government could declare an emergency. The bar needs to be sufficiently high and this needs to be the 'least restrictive' response... which again, I can't really imagine.

So can they? Sure. Do you HONESTLY not think that such an argument would be used by liberals to take away guns?

Talk about living in a fantasy world.

(04-02-2024 04:46 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-02-2024 04:04 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Yep there is such a massive difference between Logan Paul urging people on mass social media to act in a manner that might kill them and some unnamed person urging people on mass social media to act in a manner that might kill them.

Massive difference there.

Only in Hamworld.

No, dipshit. You left off the 'declaration of an emergency' that was present in her hypo.

You act like they were meaninglessly different... yet you leave off perhaps the most meaningful detail.

Well, dipshit -- the question is *if* [all these things happen] *can* the government intervene in any fashion, even to the extreme point of declaring an emergency.

Here is a basic remedial reminder on what a 'hypothetical question' is, Ham.

Quote:A hypothetical question is a question that is based on a hypothetical scenario, not on reality or facts. It is used to explore possibilities, opinions, or consequences of something that might or might not happen. A hypothetical question usually includes all the facts in evidence needed to form an opinion, and asks the witness to state his or her opinion based on the assumption that the facts are true.

The hypo portion are the underlying issues presented as theoretically being true, set as a predicate to ask a question. Her question is "could the US government declare an emergency and act based on [the issues presented]."

Much like I ask if the US government can act or intervene.

The thing you squawk about being 'missing' is literally her fing original question. It is *not* in her predicate. Learn some basic fing English. The same basic question is what I asked, and am asking.

Get back to us when you understand that basic difference. Or squeal and ***** some more on a really dumb*** issue.

My issue is/was 'given [my hypos], can/should the government intervene in a similar fashion.

If you cant make that out, that is on your shallow end, Ham.

Ill leave the rest of your fing random brain walks, including your idiotic 'well whadbaout the 2nd amendment' in place.


Hint: Think about the main reason for *any* exceptions for the 1st Amendment. Aside from those based on the Constitutional provision for copyright, and the ones for trademark, the vast majority have embedded in them a rationale based on a concept. It starts with presence of something that the speech in question threatens. It starts with the letters "dan" and ends with "er".

That is -- the concept is *already* embedded in 1A issues. From the get go. So squawk some more gobbledygook.

The SCOTUS has looked into the issue of that concept in 2A practice. Ill give you a big hint on what they ended up at with the issue === it rhymes with sixnay.

So in reality Ham, the 'dan' concept is *already* part and parcel of *why* the exceptions are in place for those topics that are excluded. If you ratched your brain out of neutral you might think that one through.

Maybe you might take the opportunity to write an AP essay about it and tell everyone how it makes you the most brillaintest 1A guy in the room.

84 104 97 116 32 105 115 32 115 97 109 112 108 101 32 116 101 120 116

(04-02-2024 05:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Well, dipshit -- the question is *if* [all these things happen] *can* the government intervene in any fashion, even to the extreme point of declaring an emergency.

Once again with your incessant need to control the conversation... limiting it to what YOU think it should be about.....

First as I have said... it is self-evident that the government has the power to declare national emergencies. That was addressed in my first posts on the issue regarding 'time of war'. The question then becomes, is 'this' sufficient for that declaration... and almost no information is given to reach a conclusion.

So you've just brought up this meaningless drivel in an attempt to feed your fragile ego.

Quote:My issue is/was 'given [my hypos], can/should the government intervene in a similar fashion.

Here's the thing, Tanq... I can explain this to you again, but I can't understand it for you. That's on you.... and your arrogance and insistence on controlling this conversation is preventing you from understanding.... because I made it clear...

Post 3712... I mentioned that to me, moderation, other than illegal content was inappropriate.

Implicit in that is that moderation of illegal content is NOT inappropriate.

You came back in post 3715 saying 'if that is the case, then troop movement disclosure during a time of war can't be moderated'.

I said in post 3719 that my 'illegal content' comment addressed that... because (and now I am paraphrasing, but I said all of this) that regulating disclosing troop movement during a time of war IS a power that the government has exerted... that is mostly moot today because of satellites, but should they deem it necessary, they have the power under emergency powers to do so.... to render it 'illegal' and thus subject to moderation.

Now to the question of 'should'... which I've also sort of addressed that. Troop movements? Short of say 'Seal Team 6' which I addressed or some other small group that might not be easily detected by satellites... 'probably' not. I say 'probably' because you've given no specifics.... but the whole premise behind the word 'disclosing' is that this is a secret... which implies a reason for it to be secretive.

Kids jumping out of windows? Kids killing themselves based on tiktok dares? That too depends on a whole lot of factors not in evidence.... and is far-fetched to begin with. In addition, I think it obvious that if someone is encouraging people to do things that they know or should know will bring harm to someone else, I'm pretty sure those can become 'crimes' of a sort.... and thus exceptions to the protections. I certainly don't know under which statutes they might fall... reckless endangerment?? Negligence? That's for people like you.

And if such crimes don't exist, then perhaps the government should look into writing such legislation. That is their job and they are allowed to regulate free speech (fire in a crowded theatre) if (according to the SCOTUS) they can demonstrate a compelling public interest and that this is the 'least restrictive' means of doing so.

So all these things you're fixated on, I've consistently addressed from my first post on this issue #3712.

Quote:Hint: Think about the main reason for *any* exceptions for the 1st Amendment. Aside from those based on the Constitutional provision for copyright, and the ones for trademark, the vast majority have embedded in them a rationale based on a concept. It starts with presence of something that the speech in question threatens. It starts with the letters "dan" and ends with "er".

That is -- the concept is *already* embedded in 1A issues. From the get go. So squawk some more gobbledygook.

Lol... says the guy pulling predicates out of his ass and passing them off as something MORE than just his opinion. I began with 'to me'... meaning this is my opinion... and you disagreeing doesn't make me wrong.

The concepts embedded in exceptions to the BOR are 'compelling state interest'.... which is REALLY what drives the court and not 'danger'... but also that the proposed remedy reflects the 'least restrictive' means of advancing that interest.

Now of course, 'danger' (which is already referenced by the number of deaths noted in each instance and example) is PART of determining the existence of a compelling state interest... but your comment implied that the mere presence of it creates that interest... and that is a demonstrable falsehood.

The dumb thing about this part of the conversation is that this is all tied up in poor hypotheticals... both hers and yours. While I reserve my opinion on why YOU made such a ridiculous hypothetical, I have a suspicion that hers could have been an intentional attempt to do precisely what you have just done... and that is to blur the lines between 'danger' and 'compelling interest'.

If we get to the point where we have declared a state of national emergency because of an epidemic of kids jumping out of windows (her hypothetical, with no numerical construct) such that 1st amendment rights can be infringed, the already articulated argument that 50,000 gun deaths per year similarly creates a sufficient national emergency/epidemic to infringe 2nd amendment rights I am convinced would not be far behind... and a precedent set.

You don't have to share my skepticism and are more than free to disagree with my opinion, but you have stated absolutely nothing upon which to base that disagreement.

I find it amusing that you so often accuse me of proclaiming myself an expert because I have an opinion that I can and do reasonably support while you assert your non-existent authority to dismiss it out of hand.

(04-03-2024 10:31 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-02-2024 05:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Well, dipshit -- the question is *if* [all these things happen] *can* the government intervene in any fashion, even to the extreme point of declaring an emergency.

Once again with your incessant need to control the conversation... limiting it to what YOU think it should be about.....

First as I have said... it is self-evident that the government has the power to declare national emergencies. That was addressed in my first posts on the issue regarding 'time of war'. The question then becomes, is 'this' sufficient for that declaration... and almost no information is given to reach a conclusion.

So you've just brought up this meaningless drivel in an attempt to feed your fragile ego.

Quote:My issue is/was 'given [my hypos], can/should the government intervene in a similar fashion.

Here's the thing, Tanq... I can explain this to you again, but I can't understand it for you. That's on you.... and your arrogance and insistence on controlling this conversation is preventing you from understanding.... because I made it clear...

Post 3712... I mentioned that to me, moderation, other than illegal content was inappropriate.

Implicit in that is that moderation of illegal content is NOT inappropriate.

You came back in post 3715 saying 'if that is the case, then troop movement disclosure during a time of war can't be moderated'.

I said in post 3719 that my 'illegal content' comment addressed that... because (and now I am paraphrasing, but I said all of this) that regulating disclosing troop movement during a time of war IS a power that the government has exerted...

And yet not necessarily illegal mind you. Even in times of war. Kind of cuts directly against you appropriateness standard above.

Quote:that is mostly moot today because of satellites, but should they deem it necessary, they have the power under emergency powers to do so.... to render it 'illegal' and thus subject to moderation.

They can? Can you state those specific emergency powers for us here. Again, be specific.

Quote:Now to the question of 'should'... which I've also sort of addressed that. Troop movements? Short of say 'Seal Team 6' which I addressed or some other small group that might not be easily detected by satellites... 'probably' not. I say 'probably' because you've given no specifics.... but the whole premise behind the word 'disclosing' is that this is a secret... which implies a reason for it to be secretive.

Disclosing may not mean what you argue by implication. And yes, the comment was very broad. Intentionally so. To point out that even folks like you support in some situations 'not hamstringing the government' --- that is precisely in line with the question that *you* derided Brown for even making.

But I am glad that you simultaneously support hamstringing the government, and at the same time (and only in various unconnected manners) support not hamstringing the government when it serves *your* specific goal.

You point to the 'disclosing troop movements' issue and unbashedly state that that garners your support in being addressed in an efficient manner by the government, and proudly point to your black line of 'illegality'. Its not per se illegal to do so, even in time of war.

You then state that it *can* be made illegal by some magical 'emergency power'. I'll bite. Which one? And how so? Or are you just pulling this out of supposition territory?

Quote:Kids jumping out of windows? Kids killing themselves based on tiktok dares? That too depends on a whole lot of factors not in evidence.... and is far-fetched to begin with.

Given the spate of kids eating detergent tablets as tik tok dares, or any of several score other styles of issues that arise fairly frequently that rise to the 'why are these dumbshits doing this because of a tiktok challenge" -- you think that 'far-fetched to begin with'? I find that activity fairly relevant, and somewhat prevalent. Thus a completely approriate issue to consider in the hypothetical predicate.

But apparently you think 'meh'. Got it.

Quote: In addition, I think it obvious that if someone is encouraging people to do things that they know or should know will bring harm to someone else, I'm pretty sure those can become 'crimes' of a sort.... and thus exceptions to the protections. I certainly don't know under which statutes they might fall... reckless endangerment?? Negligence? That's for people like you.

Someone executing a tiktok challenge on posting it is in no way 'illegal'. Either in the strict criminal sense, or in the lesser civil sense, nor in your vastly broad sense.

Quote:And if such crimes don't exist, then perhaps the government should look into writing such legislation. That is their job and they are allowed to regulate free speech (fire in a crowded theatre) if (according to the SCOTUS) they can demonstrate a compelling public interest and that this is the 'least restrictive' means of doing so.

So your view is to let a few score people maim or kill themselves, and all the while the issue in pending in the court system -- keep the video going and live? And it is 'inappropriate' in view for the government to intervene. Sounds like a rip roaring good time?

Quote:

Quote:Hint: Think about the main reason for *any* exceptions for the 1st Amendment. Aside from those based on the Constitutional provision for copyright, and the ones for trademark, the vast majority have embedded in them a rationale based on a concept. It starts with presence of something that the speech in question threatens. It starts with the letters "dan" and ends with "er".

That is -- the concept is *already* embedded in 1A issues. From the get go. So squawk some more gobbledygook.

Lol... says the guy pulling predicates out of his ass and passing them off as something MORE than just his opinion. I began with 'to me'... meaning this is my opinion... and you disagreeing doesn't make me wrong.

The concepts embedded in exceptions to the BOR are 'compelling state interest'.... which is REALLY what drives the court and not 'danger'... but also that the proposed remedy reflects the 'least restrictive' means of advancing that interest.

Well, put that bright ol' noggin to work and say exactly *what* those state interests are in particular. You are correct that is the broad group, absolutely. But think about *what* in particular the state interest is specifically.

Seriously Ham. As a state solicitor general you cant simply say 'compelling state interest. End of story. But apparently you think so? Seriously?

Since there obviously *are* specific state interests (above and beyond the broad recitation that you attempt above), think about them. Ive listed a decent amount of them.

Almost all them have, as a specific rationale *and* that rationale as the compelling state interest that a state wishes to except from free speech, some form of the 'danger' issue that you are so frightened of invoking.

Quote:Now of course, 'danger' (which is already referenced by the number of deaths noted in each instance and example) is PART of determining the existence of a compelling state interest... but your comment implied that the mere presence of it creates that interest... and that is a demonstrable falsehood.

I dont think I said that, nor did I wish to imply that the 'mere presence of' is the sole basis of those interests. I guess I should yell 'liar' to you for promoting that which I did not say, nor implied.

My comment is simply directed that the concept you think is oh so terrible as in being introduced to 1A analysis, in specific *why* most exceptions are put forth in that realm, is that there is some form of danger that a state wishes to lessen.

Quote:The dumb thing about this part of the conversation is that this is all tied up in poor hypotheticals... both hers and yours. While I reserve my opinion on why YOU made such a ridiculous hypothetical, I have a suspicion that hers could have been an intentional attempt to do precisely what you have just done... and that is to blur the lines between 'danger' and 'compelling interest'.

Well, you have blurred the line of those two extraordinarily bad. The former is a fairly large subset of the latter.

Quote:If we get to the point where we have declared a state of national emergency because of an epidemic of kids jumping out of windows (her hypothetical, with no numerical construct) such that 1st amendment rights can be infringed, the already articulated argument that 50,000 gun deaths per year similarly creates a sufficient national emergency/epidemic to infringe 2nd amendment rights I am convinced would not be far behind... and a precedent set.

Well that has been tried. And put down at the highest level. I find your extension of the 'danger' construct fairly specious. A presence of danger is, and has been, core to whether a 1a exception is proper for about as long time as the Constitution has been in effect. It is part and parcel of the analysis, and enters into the calculus if a state actually has a compelling interest. For 200 years or so, mind you.

But *now* you are frightened about that standard being applied to another framework of analysis? Lol.

Quote:You don't have to share my skepticism and are more than free to disagree with my opinion, but you have stated a I find youbsolutely nothing upon which to base that disagreement.

Yep, you find pretty much anything that you dont agree with at the outset as 'absolutely nothing'. Try NT Exec Law 62-12 for one. I am not surprised that you state that sentence bolded above. Seems part and parcel to the Ham approach from what I can see.

Quote:I find it amusing that you so often accuse me of proclaiming myself an expert because [b]I have an opinion that I can and do reasonably support while you assert your non-existent authority to dismiss it out of hand.

[/quote]

I have stated absolutely the basis of most exceptions to 1A, which flies in the face of your 'oh no, a danger argument'. I am sorry that you choose not to listen, nor to probably even look those items up.

Feel free to do so. Or just state your 'nothing but baseless' arm-waving schtick like you do in the bolded above.

FTR, unauthorized disclosure of troop movements in wartime would be illegal.

And Tanq or Ham, could one of you post a text copy of War and Peace to the board so your posts might be shorter and more readable?

Quote:WELL, PRINCE, Genoa and Lucca are now no more than private estates of the Bonaparte family. No, I warn you, that if you do not tell me we are at war, if you again allow yourself to palliate all the infamies and atrocities of this Antichrist (upon my word, I believe he is), I don't know you in future, you are no longer my friend, no longer my faithful slave, as you say. There, how do you do, how do you do? I see I'm scaring you, sit down and talk to me.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/2...tioner.pdf
and
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/2...0Brief.pdf

Alvorado v. Austin

Quote: JUST IN: On a 9-4 vote, 3rd Circuit denies en banc review in PA case about whether date requirement for absentee ballots is enforceable Doc: https://t.co/IDYaXq2Wwg 3rd Cir Panel held 2-1 last month it is enforceable under federal law https://t.co/3RI6p96Nuo

— Josh Gerstein (@joshgerstein) April 30, 2024