Message from @[Lex]
Discord ID: 502602257850957869
@Ghawk “recent polls” is what they say, even thought they came out in June.
He really is putting a lot of the spotlight on this caravan
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1053013864244219904
He'd better have a plan to stop it
Downvote pls
ew
@Kevin The only way to defeat Chaos is to become apart of it my friend.
through mal and mal alone
controlled chaos
shieeeeet
lmfao
zuck's getting cucked
duh
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10837589 - another major city loses its majority.
Dorsey is such a fucking filthy cryptokike
Hopefully the SC rules with us on social media and free speech
I'm not as much considering the SC's precedence on the 1st amendment and social media
I hope you're right.
https://youtu.be/uo_2tUaYews - good news is that the anti-McCaskill PV video is widely disseminating throughout the MO electorate.
I think there was a case ruled unanimously a few years ago on the SC where a judge called social media "the public forum of the modern day" to strike down some rule in NC where the government tried to keep a criminal from going on facebook or something
"Even with these assumptions, the statute here enacts a prohibition
unprecedented in the scope of First Amendment speech it burdens.
Social media allows users to gain access to information and communicate
with one another on any subject that might come to mind.
With one broad stroke, North Carolina bars access to what for many
are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for
employment, **speaking and listening in the modern public square**,
and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and
knowledge. Foreclosing access to social media altogether thus prevents
users from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment
rights. Even convicted criminals—and in some instances especially
convicted criminals—might receive legitimate benefits from
these means for access to the world of ideas, particularly if they seek
to reform and to pursue lawful and rewarding lives. "
-Packingham v. North Carolina
"In a unanimous judgment issued in June 2017, the Court ruled the North Carolina statute unconstitutional, and that social media — defined broadly enough to include Facebook, Amazon.com, the Washington Post, and WebMD — is considered a "protected space" under the First Amendment for lawful speech."
It looks like the SC will be hearing a case that goes right to this subject matter quite soon.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/16/supreme-court-case-could-decide-fb-twitter-power-to-regulate-speech.html
Just one little whitepill
The case doesn't have much to do with social media on its own face, however, the way it's judged could be monumental.
This is multiculturalism. A deeply divided state of nation and culture where ethnic groups invariably self-segregate according to race and exhaustively develop means of avoiding other races.
Diversity's nice.
this is what democracy's all about
differences
domination
Which do you pick:
Diversity with tax cuts?
or
Diversity with tax hikes?
I like my diversity with a side of Israeli worship