Well done to the Supreme Court.

[Sava]

Of course it is. What else could it possibly be?

I don't know what to tell you. A bus isn't a bird.

So what'd you bring it up for? Were you changing the subject because you knew you were wrong? Why not discuss the weather or the World Cup?

Airwaves are public. Speech is private. This is a fairly simple concept.

Citizens United made a movie critical of a political candidate. If it wasn't "political discourse" the FEC wouldn't have blocked it. The idea that the government can stifle political debate because it is political is a completely against the letter and intent of the First Amendment. Only a blindly partisan fool like Oerdin or a liar like you could possibly oppose the Citizens United decision.

That's a finely crafted argument.

But sadly, nobody but partisan idiots like you believes it.

Restrictions on the ability of non-person moneyed entities to produce propaganda allows free speech to exist.

You have it completely backwards.


You are a corporate toolbag. Pathetic.

[Sava]

Jeez Louise, take it somewhere else. Not every SCOTUS thread has to turn into a rehash of the Citizen's United decision!

Freedom hater

STOP TRYING TO STIFLE OUR DEBATRE

[Imran Siddiqui]

Don't make me McCain-Feingold you!!

[Hauldren Collider]

I certainly don't mind the ruling, but I do wonder at the justification for it. If I happen to carry the same information that a cellphone has but in, say, a notebook, will I be granted the same protection? If not, why not?

It's okay to look through someone's person in order to check for a weapon. It would be okay to examine a cell phone to ensure it is not a weapon but not for any other reason. Furthermore, the scale of information available from a person's cellphone is vastly greater than any other thing they could have on them.

[Sava]

Don't make me McCain-Feingold you!!

I"M BEING REPRESSED
I"M BEING REPRESSED

[Sava]

It's okay to look through someone's person in order to check for a weapon. It would be okay to examine a cell phone to ensure it is not a weapon but not for any other reason. Furthermore, the scale of information available from a person's cellphone is vastly greater than any other thing they could have on them.

What about if the person is a Muslim? Shouldn't they be profiled? I mean... let's be real. Who flies planes into buildings?

[Felch]

But sadly, nobody but partisan idiots like you believes it.

Yup, me and the ACLU are towing the GOP line.

[Sava]

Irrelevant. It's simple physics. The electronic transmission of a television signal is not speech. Nobody went and silenced the individuals. Nobody told them they couldn't go on the street and spout their idiocy... or produce the actual content itself. The speech was already done. Speech happens when people speak, not when television signals get broadcasted.

It's a complete non starter. The only fact the decision wasn't 9-0 the other way is because you have conservative assbags on the bench subjecting us to their delusions.

[Hauldren Collider]

What about if the person is a Muslim? Shouldn't they be profiled? I mean... let's be real. Who flies planes into buildings?

[Berzerker]

I'm not happy. Why would you think I'm happy?

I like this whole warrant thing.

[Sava]

I like this whole warrant thing.

Yes. Warrants are good*.

*better than not having them

What does my happiness have to do with anything?

also HC

I came across that a few days ago when I was looking for a muslim BK pic.

[Felch]

Irrelevant. It's simple physics. The electronic transmission of a television signal is not speech. Nobody went and silenced the individuals. Nobody told them they couldn't go on the street and spout their idiocy... or produce the actual content itself. The speech was already done. Speech happens when people speak, not when television signals get broadcasted.

Wrong. First of all, this was a cable transmission, which is not covered by the same body of law as over-the-air transmission. Furthermore, speech is not defined in the US as narrowly as you imagine it is. Not only are you clearly unfamiliar with legal precedent in the United States, but you are also in disagreement with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which the US signed and ratified).

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

So clearly you know neither the facts of the case nor the relevant laws. Maybe you should keep your retardation to yourself.

Stick to video games, Sava, and leave politics to those of us who actually understand them.

[Sava]

I didn't sign the UDHR.

I think it also says internet access is a human right.

FREE INTERNET FOR EVERYBODY!?!!?

I'm assuming you support free internet for everyone.

The fact that you are conflating two distinct acts into a single act is hilarious. I can't get on a blowhorn at 2am and spout off a bunch of political bull****. The restriction on that speech is more egregious than the issue in the CU case.

Broadcasting a television signal is not speech.

But feel free to continue to be wrong.

Corporate tool.

[pchang]

I am disappointed with the Aereo decision.

Government of the $, for the $, by the $.

[Sava]

bah, Aereo sucks and they were charging for something that's free

screw them