- Joined
- Feb 5, 2019
yesCAUTION
THIS THREAD IS UNDER FBI INVESTIGATION
THANK YOU SO MUCH @SIGSEGV
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
yesCAUTION
THIS THREAD IS UNDER FBI INVESTIGATION
THANK YOU SO MUCH @SIGSEGV
...how do you know that's his Facebook account?
The best case in PA was the law that allowed mail in ballots was against the PA constitution.How is there a solid case in PA? This whole thing has been so crazy I can't remember if anything major happened there.
He says "You're welcome"CAUTION
THIS THREAD IS UNDER FBI INVESTIGATION
THANK YOU SO MUCH @SIGSEGV
Then they will be bored, since most here are not stupid enough to outright advocate for murder, and the few who are are probably threadbanned.CAUTION
THIS THREAD IS UNDER FBI INVESTIGATION
THANK YOU SO MUCH @SIGSEGV
I figure the ones who actually are stupid enough to get FBI attention are probably trolls in some primitive east-euro shithole somewhere that the FBI can't reach.Then they will be bored, since most here are not stupid enough to outright advocate for murder, and the few who are are probably threadbanned.
@SIGSEGV is fat and I would not glowpost with him.CAUTION
THIS THREAD IS UNDER FBI INVESTIGATION
THANK YOU SO MUCH @SIGSEGV
Violent speech is fine it only crosses a line if it is likely to lead to imminent lawless action. Sigsev post is probably actually covered under the first amendment.Then they will be bored, since most here are not stupid enough to outright advocate for murder, and the few who are are probably threadbanned.
I can't be bothered to check, but I'm mostly sure the only person I've advocated violence against is myselfThen they will be bored, since most here are not stupid enough to outright advocate for murder, and the few who are are probably threadbanned.
The Brandenburg test more or less defines what lies beyond Constitutional protections. The speech must be calculated to cause "imminent lawless action." This requires actual intent. More importantly, though, the speech also has to be actually likely to result in such "imminent lawless action." A shitpost on a forum isn't going to do that. The question then becomes whether it was actually a "true threat," which doesn't mean any collection of random magic words, but whether the target of it would reasonably fear an actual attack. This is pretty questionable in this case with an obvious joke post, much like prosecuting someone for the Navy Seals copypasta. But hey, feds will be feds.Violent speech is fine it only crosses a line if it is likely to lead to imminent lawless action. Sigsev post is probably actually covered under the first amendment.
Still stupid to glowpost though.
Trump being Azathoth feels like there'd be larger consequences.Thanks a lot faggots, this site is going down thanks to your blind idiot god.
And the PASC decision to extend mail in voting times violated the US ConstitutionThe best case in PA was the law that allowed mail in ballots was against the PA constitution.
Thanks a lot faggots, this site is going down thanks to your blind idiot god.
First, the Section 230 doom for a couple pages, and now the feds are on us. Inauguration Day can't come any sooner.Cool the thread is unusable for another few hours
And then we get to be Ridin with Biden for 4 years. Oh joy.First, the Section 230 doom for a couple pages, and now the feds are on us. Inauguration Day can't come any sooner.
Honestly, with the way the Democrats have been acting after the election, all I can just say is 'You want the country that badly? Just take it then."And then we get to be Ridin with Biden for 4 years. Oh joy.