David, I know you're just a recent college student but nobody in power in your lifetime
could have stopped climate change or gun violence.
You couldn't have either, because you're stupid.
This was retweeted today.
View attachment 3556090
This retweet makes some of the retweets further down make more sense. Alex also follows Mardoll.
View attachment 3556091
Alex, what the fuck are you talking about?
(
A)
John, fuck off. You’re not a woman.
View attachment 3556093
View attachment 3556126
That sounds like a wholesome story where a puppy helps a young woman from making irreversible decisions.
Ana Mardoll, John and Zach. So his literature, tech and science sources are as qualified as his lawyering.
This article is hilarious, so its endorsement by Troon Lawyer and whoever this person is saying "No one I trust more to look into" than the author is great. The author who is... Melissa Gira Grant, her qualifications?
Studied comparative literature (no degree) and is not a lawyer. But was a sex worker and is a writer about sex work. Fantastic.
The CDA, except Section 230 (which Troon Lawyer has previously displayed great knowledge about), was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court back in Reno v. ACLU in 1997.
The article
does mention Reno v. ACLU but says:
The Supreme Court (which goes above "district court judges") struck down the entire fucking law but the article never even mentions this while mentioning the case that did it!
BUT IT GETS WORSE:
Okay, so read the laws here:

Indecent is defined as:
The article does admit this isn't really true says the ACLU:
But then says:
So what's the argument here? Who is selling information about abortion on the internet that lacks "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value"? What could possibly meet this standard for obscenity?
Here's what this article is actually saying: you could theoretically read these provisions as saying that anything said about abortion incites murder therefore someone can interpret this as being a carve out to the First Amendment and therefore someone could arrest you for violating federal obscenity laws and then the Supreme Court could theoretically uphold that as not being a carve out to the First Amendment because they've also upheld in Miller that theoretically obscenity is an exception to the First Amendment. But this is also true about any kind of speech regarding murder, arson or assassination. Yet, the standard for inciting speech in Brandenberg means that merely talking about these things IS
NOT INCITEMENT.
Could the federal government arrest you for saying that a good way to kill someone is with a gun and that Troon Lawyer is a person and also that Wal-Mart is a good place to buy a gun? In
theory, yes, this would meet the same standards for obscenity and incitement that is being suggested here. Sure, it's never been done, but theoretically it could be and then the Supreme Court could then uphold it even though they haven't yet and nobody thinks this might happen but it always theoretically could.
So our Troon Lawyer retweeted a tweet about an article from a non-lawyer who has a paranoid conspiracy theory about the law.
And look at that, in the thread on Twitter from the writer is someone I've seen in the replies of all these people worried about the TROON GENOCIDE that is happening and wonder if they should just kill themselves that I put in the trans sideshow thread a few times:
Then I looked at who Troon Lawyer RT'd this from, oh look, another troon "expert" lawyer at the Harvard Cyber Law Clinic who shits all over Twitter constantly:
And who replied but the author:
And now we're all smarter from everyone sharing this lunacy all over Twitter about the coming fascism that will throw us all in federal prison for posting about abortion online if they have the time between Genociding us all for being troons or whatever the fuck else they're going to Genocide us for because we're the most important fucking people at the center of everything on the planet.