XPost: alt.slack.goathead, alt.slack, alt.checkmate
From: Kenito@Benito.naw
On Sat, 20 Sep 2025 10:44:12 +0000, Tom Mix wrote:
>In article <>, Doc Hammerslack wrote:
>
>> NOTICE: The DOCTOR is ON...at Sat, 20 Sep 2025 03:01:52 -0500, Kenito
>> Benito wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 19 Sep 2025 13:38:08 -0400, mixed nuts
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>>> On 9/19/2025 11:49, Janithor wrote:
>>>>> On 9/19/2025 2:51 AM, William Stickers wrote:
>>>>>> Janithor wrote:
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>> Who is next?
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> Not me. I live in a country where people don't shoot each other every
>>>>>> day because we don't have a fucking stoopid second amendment.
>>>>>> Charlie Kirk said that of the gun deaths, "I think it's worth it. I
>>>>>> think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths
>>>>>> every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect
>>>>>> our other God-given rights."
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> So suck it up.
>>>>>> Charlie has.
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> Whining about it won't bring him back or the other Americans shot by
>>>>>> other gun bearing Americans exercising their "God-given rights.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> You didn't read the link, did you? Kinda helps when you're formulating
>>>>> a reply.
>>>> >>
>>>> Not everybody needs (or deserves) free speech. Free speech is for
>>>> important people (like dead Charlie, Donald J. Trump). It's not for
>>>> unimportant people like Jimmy Kimmel or people on MSNBC or CNN.
>>> >
>>> What, exactly, do you think the government, or its agent(s), did
>>> to Jimmy to violate his First Amendment Right?
>>
>> The FCC chair threatened ABC affiliates with taking their broadcast
>> licenses away for (checks notes) "lying". That is very much a first
>> amendment issue.
>
>True, the government should not be involved.
>
It isn't. Anna Gomez, FCC Commissioner, has made it clear the FCC
can't punish stations for the network refusing to punish Jimmy Kimmel.
And it's the affiliates that have the licenses, not the network.
>> It's the new "Kimmel rule" in the Glorious Trump
>> State version of Calvinball.
>
>Did you care this much when the same game was played against conservatives?
>
Since the rule doesn't exist, he can't have :)
>> Looks like it's time for another donation to the ACLU:
>>
>> https://aclu.org
>
>The same ones who support paedophiles? You're aligning with them?
>
BEING a pedophile isn't a violation of any law. How one acts on
it can be.
>> BTW, another first amendment organization isn't as famous,
>> but is important anyway -- and that is "Americans United for
>> the Separation of Church and State":
>>
>> https://au.org
>
>AU is less about "separation" and more about selective enforcement.
EXACTLY.
>They never raise hell when left-leaning groups drag politics into the
>pulpit, but the second a conservative church speaks up, they're on the
>attack. That's not protecting the First Amendment, that's weaponizing
>it. If they actually cared about neutrality, they'd apply the same
>standard across the board — but they don't.
Au is all about protecting the speech of ultra liberal views. In
and of itself, this is fine. The organization can support whatever
fits its position(s). But to pretend AU is in any way balanced is
almost funny.
--
Describe yourself in three words.
"Unable to follow instructions."
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
