@sassypantz676 So after viewing my other video you stand with the government that even though the statue covers books we shouldn't worry because the state has never tried to so far ban books? Is that what I'm getting here? Would you like to listen to the audio again?
@sassypantz676 Why the constant awful comparisons? From anthrax murder zombies to calling for the overthrow of the state? What are you on? Can you focus?
@sassypantz676 It did have to do with topic as I clearly proved via audio of the oral arguments in front of the Supreme court. As matter of fact it was very relevant. It was discussed repeatedly. So much so that the state was backed into a corner and had to change its stance. So don't tell me its not relevant when it clearly is and was discussed at length in court.
@sassypantz676 Really? It doesn't have the right to publish a book that advocates for the violent overthrow of the state? So Ted Rall should be thrown in prison and his book "The Anti-American Manifesto" should be banned? Really? Where do you get these tyrannical ideas from because its not american and its not from the constitution. That explains a lot about your views on free speech.hank you.
If RandomHouse publishes it's own book on why the we need to violently overthrow the government and replace it with Random House as it's dictator then no it doesn't have a right. If John Doe publishes the same book with RandomHouse then yes he does have a right because he is a human being not a corporation.
No it's not what I'm claiming, I'm claiming the only time when prohibiting money is a violation of speech is when you are prohibiting money used specifically for speech.
Like if we assume money is speech in general sense then I have a right to buy anything including anthrax but that's not the case.
The law does, look up the dictionary definition of a corporation, it's not "a group of people."
@sassypantz676 where do you come up with these ridiculous comparisons? robot murder anthrax comparisons that don't fly in a court of law. Fact is the first amendment never makes a distinction on whom individuals are or if they are in a group whatever. The states case was so sloppy that it broached on book banning...the justices even the liberal ones were horrified. Listen to the audio of even Ginsburg being put off by the obama call for censorship in the name of campaign finance in my new vid.
@sassypantz676 So after viewing my other video you stand with the government that even though the statue covers books we shouldn't worry because the state has never tried to so far ban books? Is that what I'm getting here? Would you like to listen to the audio again?
thebackbencher666 1 week ago
@sassypantz676 Why the constant awful comparisons? From anthrax murder zombies to calling for the overthrow of the state? What are you on? Can you focus?
thebackbencher666 1 week ago
@sassypantz676 So Abbie Hoffmans "Steal This Book" should have been banned and prohibited from publication?
thebackbencher666 1 week ago
@sassypantz676 It did have to do with topic as I clearly proved via audio of the oral arguments in front of the Supreme court. As matter of fact it was very relevant. It was discussed repeatedly. So much so that the state was backed into a corner and had to change its stance. So don't tell me its not relevant when it clearly is and was discussed at length in court.
thebackbencher666 1 week ago
@sassypantz676 Really? It doesn't have the right to publish a book that advocates for the violent overthrow of the state? So Ted Rall should be thrown in prison and his book "The Anti-American Manifesto" should be banned? Really? Where do you get these tyrannical ideas from because its not american and its not from the constitution. That explains a lot about your views on free speech.hank you.
thebackbencher666 1 week ago
@thebackbencher666
2/2
If RandomHouse publishes it's own book on why the we need to violently overthrow the government and replace it with Random House as it's dictator then no it doesn't have a right. If John Doe publishes the same book with RandomHouse then yes he does have a right because he is a human being not a corporation.
What's the url for the video?
sassypantz676 1 week ago
@thebackbencher666
No it's not what I'm claiming, I'm claiming the only time when prohibiting money is a violation of speech is when you are prohibiting money used specifically for speech.
Like if we assume money is speech in general sense then I have a right to buy anything including anthrax but that's not the case.
The law does, look up the dictionary definition of a corporation, it's not "a group of people."
sassypantz676 1 week ago
@sassypantz676 Video response uploaded.
thebackbencher666 1 week ago
@sassypantz676 where do you come up with these ridiculous comparisons? robot murder anthrax comparisons that don't fly in a court of law. Fact is the first amendment never makes a distinction on whom individuals are or if they are in a group whatever. The states case was so sloppy that it broached on book banning...the justices even the liberal ones were horrified. Listen to the audio of even Ginsburg being put off by the obama call for censorship in the name of campaign finance in my new vid.
thebackbencher666 1 week ago