Hello.

You are receiving this message because you posted in defense of Donald Trump. I no longer provide individual responses on this matter. It has been my experience that Trump supporters are universally incapable of accepting verifiable truths about him and, by extension, themselves, thus rendering discussion pointless and, therefore, a waste of time.

I wish you all the best in your ongoing battle with reality.

Yours respectfully, a logical person.

Snapshots:

1. T_D has a civil war when Daddy says... - archive.org, archive.today, removeddit.com

I am just a simple bot, *not** a moderator of this subreddit* | bot subreddit | contact the maintainers

>The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is the most important thing ever writtten in this history of mankind

Lmao these guys are the biggest fucking goobers ever

Yeah these morons obviously haven't read my microwave brownie recipe

Post it, i tried some cake one that involved a coffee mug but it was garbage

It's this one, haven't had it in ages but I remember it fondly

Oh that seems much better than whatever i had, which i think was just hot chocolate mix, water, and a egg or something horrific lol

I mean, can you prove them wrong? Its entirely subjective on whats the most important thing ever written is.

I can prove you’re a fuckin dork

It's called Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.

Anything but wand-shit, please I beg you.

Fine.

CAPESHIT IS EVEN WORSE

actually it would unironically be one of the religious texts. Now I'm not saying they were the best thing that happened to the world,¹ but the Bible or Quran or other religious texts have literally influenced billions of people on how to live their lives. Much of the last thousands of years of culture, politics, and even science² has developed as a result of religious ideals.

The entire world would be an entirely different world if any of the major religious texts were substantially different or didn't exist at all.

Yeah, I was going to say. For an evangelical sub, I'm surprised that T_D didn't think that the Bible is the most important thing ever written.

The religious texts are probably the most important, as you said. Though the reason I said its subjective is because an atheist would probably be a contrarian on the matter.

U speak Arabic my Muslim brother?

Lighting a flag on fire is not "speech". It is a physical act of violent hatred for the United States of America and all its citizens. People who burn U.S. flags are severely mentally ill and are a violent danger to society. They are criminals.

Based and flagpilled

Burning an inanimate object is now considered an act of violence against all citizens of the US. 🔥 🇺🇸🔥 🇺🇸🔥 🇺🇸🔥 🇺🇸🔥 🇺🇸🔥 🇺🇸🔥 🇺🇸🔥 🇺🇸🔥 🇺🇸🔥 🇺🇸🔥 🇺🇸🔥 🇺🇸🔥 🇺🇸🔥 🇺🇸🔥 🇺🇸🔥 🇺🇸🔥 🇺🇸🔥 🇺🇸🔥 🇺🇸🔥 🇺🇸🔥 🇺🇸🔥

People who burn U.S. flags are severely mentally ill and are a violent danger to society. They are criminals.

Based and not-knowing-flag-code-pilled

The flag code provides no penalties to civilians for violations.

I know. I just love when ppl get rolled up about dumb shit

Burn a flag nobody bats and eye

Burn a cross in somebody's yard and everybody loses their mind.

I have a feeling that this is a chess move by geotus to make the left burn flags to further prove their hate of America. He understands free speech.

This is what the final stages of brain death look like.

Trump has been trying to go after free speech for a while, lol. In the opening days in office he seemed to have thought they could change the 1st amendment to prevent the media from saying mean things about him:

https://theweek.com/speedreads/695695/reince-priebus-admits-trump-administration-looked-into-changing-first-amendment

Karl sought to clarify President Trump's tweet that "the failing New York Times has disgraced the media world. Gotten me wrong for two solid years. Change the libel laws?" "That would require, as I understand it, a constitutional amendment," Karl said. "Is he really going to pursue that? Is that something he wants to pursue?"

"I think it's something we've looked at," Priebus replied in the affirmative. "How that gets executed, or whether that goes anywhere, is a different story."

Libel isn’t “free speech” lmao

You should take it up with the supreme court and look into why US libel walks work the way they do.

you should take it up with the Supreme Court and look into why US libel laws work they way they do

If I wasn’t convinced that everything you know about libel, libel per se, and defamation wasn’t gained through an afternoon of Wikipedia browsing I might try and explain some things to you, but you’re trying to argue that libel is free speech, which is not what the law says.

I see the confusion here, it's that you're illiterate.

Let me break this down in a way you can comprehend.

A) I never said actual libel was "free speech." I said Trump thought he could go after the NYT and sue them for libel simply because they reported accurate facts he didn't like. I said the Mueller report confirmed much of the reporting.

B) I explained the actual malice standard was put in place because southern politicians were using frivolous lawsuits to sink various news outlets that were again, reporting accurate facts during the civil rights era.

You, do to your illiteracy, poor reading comprehension, or perhaps both, somehow took that as me saying actual "libel" was free speech.

You never cease to amaze me with your mental gymnastics, pizza.

All I said was that libel isn’t protected under the first amendment and your response was to defensively explain the history of libel laws to me.

You should take it up with the supreme court and look into why US libel walks work the way they do.

Opening up libel laws, as in removing actual malice standards, is just something conservatives want so they can launch lawsuit after lawsuit against the media and bog them down in court, in the end the things the media report are true, but they're still able to strangle out various media outlets. I’m quite aware of how libel law works in the US as well as several states, thank you. Where did you go to law school again?

How does that dirt taste, btw?

What lol? You just copy pasted something confirming what I said. I can't tell if you're trolling or what.

Opening up libel laws, as in removing actual malice standards, is just something conservatives want so they can launch lawsuit after lawsuit against the media and bog them down in court, in the end the things the media report are true, but they're still able to strangle out various media outlets.

How does this conflict with anything I said?

Trump has been trying to go after free speech for a while, lol.

From your first sentence you seemed to imply that that libel is protected under the first amendment, and that Trump needs to change the 1A in order to sue the NYT.

I thought this was humorous and incorrect and memed on you.

You got insecure about your intelligence again and went on a Wikipedia warpath overexplaining everything.

I’m glad you discovered malice standards while furiously wiki-ing a response to me. Now you know that libel is still illegal, and that it’s not “protected under the 1a” as much as it’s “very difficult for the plaintiff to prove.”

You’re welcome.

From your first sentence you seemed to imply that that libel is protected under the first amendment, and that Trump needs to change the 1A in order to sue the NYT.

No. What I said is the first amendment protects false statements made by the media, because of an actual malice standard. Trump wanted to goa fter the 1st amendment and "open up libel" laws, opening up libel laws in this context meaning a removal of the actual malice standard.

https://theweek.com/speedreads/695695/reince-priebus-admits-trump-administration-looked-into-changing-first-amendment

Karl sought to clarify President Trump's tweet that "the failing New York Times has disgraced the media world. Gotten me wrong for two solid years. Change the libel laws?" "That would require, as I understand it, a constitutional amendment," Karl said. "Is he really going to pursue that? Is that something he wants to pursue?"

Trump thought he could change the 1st amendment to go after the NYT, if you had read the Trump tweet in question you'd have seen what I was talking about.

I’m glad you discovered malice standards while furiously wiki-ing a response to me. Now you know that libel is still illegal, and that it’s not “protected under the 1a” as much as it’s “very difficult for the plaintiff to prove.”

False statements are protected, in this context, Trump wanted to go after the media for saying things he was claiming were false. Read the linked tweet.

I responded with:

In sum the court ruled that "the First Amendment protects the publication of all statements, even false ones, about the conduct of public officials except when statements are made with actual malice (with knowledge that they are false or in reckless disregard of their truth or falsity)."

So yes, in order for Trump to get what he wanted here, in the context of his tweet, would mean changing the 1st amendment, which is why they "looked at that."

You’re so full of shit Mr Pizza esquire lmao

False statements are protected under the 1st amendment, as long as there was no actual malice.

The supreme court ruled false statements are protected by the 1st amendment in this context, as long as it wasn't intentional.

Free speech is just a way for us to find out which libs we need to put to death for... Using their right to free speech?

we must preserve the freedom of speech and expression free from repercussions

NOOOOOOOO not that way of expression

Uh, I thought that righty Amerilards loved their first amendment

Argh the rotation crap happens on mobile too. Loving the return of the new css mods 😍

[removed]

Then burning faggot lgbtq flags shouldn’t be considered a hate crime. Because here in CA it def is and you will probably get your ass beat by a rabid group of homos.

https://psmag.com/.image/t_share/MTY0NzE0NTc2NTQwMDgzOTk1/gettyimages-619309866.jpg

If Daddy was good at 5D chess he would be pro-flagburning, so that all flag burners get lung cancer.