Things that made you frown today (Political Version)

[Gompers]

Ever the Patriot! Thanks again for answering the call to serve your coun... Oh wait, forgot you are a couch-Patriot.

I'm sure you were standing at attention in front of your TV screen this afternoon though, right?? Right???

[Tgo01]

The President is part of the government. hth

Yes. Now finish reading that sentence of mine. Go on, you're a big boy now, you can do it...unless...UNLESS...the government...come on...unless the government gets involved in stopping 1st...come on, almost there...1st amendment. Yes. When did Trump personally stop anyone's first amendment rights?

Troll.

[Androidpk]

Troll calling someone else a troll..

[Tgo01]

Troll calling someone else a troll..

Here we see the ever confused Androidpk in his natural habitat, trying desperately to make sense of the world around him and failing.

[Gompers]

Here we see the ever confused Androidpk in his natural habitat, trying desperately to make sense of the world around him and failing.

And here we see, in a most rare opportunity - a troll, attempting to troll a troll by trolling. Spectacular indeed.

[Latrinsorm]

Yes. Now finish reading that sentence of mine. Go on, you're a big boy now, you can do it...unless...UNLESS...the government...come on...unless the government gets involved in stopping 1st...come on, almost there...1st amendment. Yes. When did Trump personally stop anyone's first amendment rights?

Troll.

He got involved in stopping First Amendment rights by publicly declaring that the people exercising them should lose their jobs. This threat has a chilling effect on protected speech regardless of whether the government uses their powers to directly ban the speech, and said chilling effect is a violation of the First Amendment, as is well established in Lamont v Postmaster General, Wieman v Updegraff, and decades of case law.

hth

[Gelston]

He got involved in stopping First Amendment rights by publicly declaring that the people exercising them should lose their jobs. This threat has a chilling effect on protected speech regardless of whether the government uses their powers to directly ban the speech, and said chilling effect is a violation of the First Amendment, as is well established in Lamont v Postmaster General, Wieman v Updegraff, and decades of case law.

hth

How did he threaten anyone? He stated his opinion, he has no power to fire them.

Lamont v Postmaster General- That is about the post office imposing an affirmation obligation for recipients of political material. Nothing to do with this.
Wieman v Updegraff- This is about due process. nothing to do with 1st Amendment.

More examples please.

[Tgo01]

And here we see, in a most rare opportunity - a troll, attempting to troll a troll by trolling. Spectacular indeed.

That does it, you're out of my text will.

[Latrinsorm]

How did he threaten anyone? He stated his opinion, he has no power to fire them.

He has power to do a heck of a lot worse.

Lamont v Postmaster General- That is about the post office imposing an affirmation obligation for recipients of political material. Nothing to do with this.

If only you had kept reading. "The addressee carries an affirmative obligation which we do not think the Government may impose on him. This requirement is almost certain to have a deterrent effect."

Wieman v Updegraff- This is about due process. nothing to do with 1st Amendment.

"Such unwarranted inhibition upon the free spirit of teachers affects not only those who, like the appellants, are immediately before the Court. It has an unmistakeable tendency to chill that free play of the spirit which all teachers ought especially to cultivate and practice; it makes for caution and timidity in their associations by potential teachers."

[Methais]

He has power to do a heck of a lot worse.

Like what?