- Joined
- Dec 31, 2018
What's great about this article is that it doesn't quote a single person to point out that the Supreme Court didn't change the law with this ruling. It made a tiny alteration to clarify what has already been precedent for over 50 years. Remember, we're supposed to support old precedents that predate Roe now. The Supreme Court was never going to overturn existing precedent on this but from reading Taylor's article you'd think online "abuse" was a federal crime they just eliminated. (Something they would have done even in that alternate world had the case brought to them involved Patirck.)
None of the law professors quoted even talks about the pre-existing state of the law or what the ruling means, one is used for Taylor to suggest "experts" think states wanting to criminalize speech is somehow proof of something which I guess means Taylor now opposes gender affirming care:
This one just provides gibberish:
This one complains about the justices tone while providing more gibberish:
And then because Taylor is nuts, she goes for a source that brings in how this lack of change in the law is a "new weapon" against "politicians, journalists, climate scientists, doctors advocating for vaccines" as if all those faggots aren't the elite of society:
Thankfully, she provides the last word to a really fat guy who once took an "advanced college course" so he really knows law gud but neither he (because he's stupid), Taylor (because she's stupid) or her editors (because they're stupid and/or probably don't read her shit) didn't even notice that Rick's two paragraphs contradict each other because in the first one he advocates the internet should be treated differently in the law before going on in the second one to talking about how there's no distinction between them and people who think there is don't know what they're talking about:
Last edited:
