it was fucking awesome

Acadia National Park is a really pretty place too

Pretty though Maine is, there's more to do here in Colorado

not to mention more people around my age

hehe i get ya (420 wink wink)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGEsN1v9cZA

"The 1946 case of Marsh v Alabama was very similar to what is going on today. a private company essentially controlled a town in Alabama (not literally, but most land and public services were either owned by or paid off by this company.) and Marsh was spreading religious fliers and this falls under her 1st amendment right. Now since the land she was doing this on was owned by this company and they had a policy against this they had her arrested. since she was arrested for her first amendment rights this case was taken to the supreme court. The company argued that since it was private and this happened on their property that they had the right to have her arrested. However in a 5-3 ruling the supreme court ruled that "ownership does not always mean absolute dominion." and "that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in.". Now how is this relevant? Most of these companies that are banning and censoring people are based in California which is a US state which also means that this ruling applies to them as well. So a good lawyer could argue that since these companies have a monopoly on speech, are US based and their platforms are publicly available for anyone to use, that they are violating the rights of US citizens by banning or censoring them on grounds of speech or beliefs. This might only have an effect in the US at first, but less censorship will be a good thing for people being able to speak out against what is happening and could lead to less censorship overall if its handled correctly."

Actually, I can't

I work for a Defense contractor and I'm under investigation for Top Secret clearance

Since weed is still illegal at the federal level, I can't partake if I want to get that

"i was denied top secret clearance"
"why"
"i smoked weed."
".....k"

Grenade, that's an interesting snippet

I'm gonna have to do some looking into that

its from one of the comments

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama

oh shit, Top Secret clearance? what do you know about the Denver Airport

Joey: nothing. I don't have the clearance yet.

that's surely a DUMB

ok ok when you do tho hmu 😉

Well, even when I get the clearance, I won't necessarily know. My first question in the SCIF is gonna be about contact with aliens. The Denver Airport is up there though.

SCIF?

I keep forgetting that people don't know all the acronyms I've picked up since I started here

SCIF = Secure Computing Information Facility

mm

i.e. air-gapped system in a Faraday cage

whoa

Nothing more advanced than the most basic battery-powered watch and a walkman CD player/headphones allowed in

🤔

:shirt: Check out **Tim Pool's TeeSpring Merch**:
<https://teespring.com/stores/timcast>

No credit cards (because of the chip), no cell phones, no smart watches

:dollar: Support **Tim Pool** on Patreon (exclusive rewards available):
<https://www.patreon.com/timcast>

fuck off mee6

fuck i wish they would just legalize already

I'm tempted to just block MEE6, but Miss Scribblehatch was showing me last night that even when you block someone on Discord you still see a placeholder for blocked messages

this city would be so much better

@Grenade123 Another interesting tidbit from the article on Marsh v. Alabama:

While the Marsh holding at first appears somewhat narrow and inapplicable to the present day due to the disappearance of company towns from the United States, it was raised in the somewhat high-profile 1996 cyberlaw case, Cyber Promotions v. America Online [...]. Cyber promotions wished to send out "mass email advertisements" to AOL customers. AOL installed software to block those emails. Cyber Promotions sued on free speech grounds and cited the Marsh case as authority for the proposition that even though AOL's servers were private property, AOL had opened them to the public to a degree sufficient that constitutional free speech protections could be applied.

In that case, though, the court disagreed

That's why we have spam filters at the ISP level now

but that was a company vs another company

This is true

Below that the article also mentions that the original case may be grounds against current Social Media companies, and that would be a case of the people vs. a company again