Labor unions sue Trump administration over social media surveillance Lawyers at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) are helping three US labor unions sue the Trump administration over a social media surveillance program that threatens to punish those who publicly express views that are not harmonious with the government's position. Citing First Amendment violations, the case is attempting …
Or do you only object when it's against your side?
Alex Berenson got shut down from Twitter* for saying ""It doesn't stop infection. Or transmission. Don't think of it as a vaccine. Think of it—at best—as a therapeutic with a limited window of efficacy and terrible side effect profile that must be dosed IN ADVANCE OF ILLNESS. And we want to mandate it? Insanity". "
*after much pressure from the US government, which is what makes this a 1st amendment issue.
And I didn't hear any howls of outrage from The Reg back then about 1st amendment rights? Turns out what he was saying was a perfectly valid opinion.
I'm all for free speech. Almost a free speech absolutist. But surely it has to be allowed for people that you disagree with as well?
All those people who called for the suppression of free speech just a couple of years ago, are now upset because the boot is on the other foot.
How can you be so short sighted to think that the other guy isn't going to use those powers / norms to suppress people that you agree with.
Also not a US resident, but I did say "after much pressure from the US government, which is what makes this a 1st amendment issue."
And that's what he was arguing in his legal case against the Biden administration.
So it potentially is kinda covered.
Maybe you should go read my post before commenting on it.
Government pressure is NOT the same thing. Yes you *could* argue they shouldn't be interfering, but ultimately it's down to the platforms. Let's not forget, those same platforms are kissing Trumps ring and once it swings back to the Democrats at some point, they will do exactly the same thing.
At ANY point the platforms could of gone NO, but they chose not to. There was absolutely NOTHING stopping him firing up his own server and repeating the same claims.
I know the law in the US is now just a political side show, but that's how it stands.
I'm just saying it has got something to do with the 1st amendment, if the government was interfering.
Sure, the platforms could have said NO... but then they would be in a position of "Nice platform you've got there, would be a shame if anything bad happened to it".
Arguing that you could set up your own platform is a pretty dumb argument. If all the platforms, with all the audience are suppressing free speech because of pressure from the government that's censorship. Go read some history. It's a bad path to go down. It doesn't end well. Twitter/X has become the town square. But you are free to go and sit in the corner of the park where no one else is nearby and make your argument?
Depending on the quality and degree of that pressure, you might have a case. Might; I'm not fully agreeing and you'd have to do a lot to prove that there was pressure and that it was a sufficient thing. That's because the ultimate decision was by a private party and led to private consequences (removal from a private platform) which can be done totally legally without any constitutional restraint. This case is a lot clearer because it involves a government decision and consequences (deportation). Maybe both count, but if only one does, it's not your one.
"This case is a lot clearer because it involves a government decision and consequences (deportation). Maybe both count, but if only one does, it's not your one."
It is telling that comments like the OP try to equate being banned from a private social media account for lying with being forcefully deported from the country for criticizing the current administration in any way or form.
Being unable to see the difference is either a rethorical trick or a sign of a totally failed education.
It is horrible that the state of the education in the US is such that we must admit that both options are indeed plausible.
[1] A very popular extremist tactic to say "I'm too dumb to understand a perfectly simple fact, please waste your time explaining it to me while I keep pretending to not get it"
"It is telling that comments like the OP try to equate being banned from a private social media account for lying with being forcefully deported from the country for criticizing the current administration in any way or form."
1) He wasn't lying. What he said was true. He was making a perfectly valid argument against mandating a new novel therapy.
2) The government were coercing the social media platforms to shut him down, which is what makes this a 1st amendment issue.
3) The article is talking about non-US citizens who openly support Hamas, so not covered by the 1st amendment. Hamas is a proscribed terrorist organisation. I don't lose sleep over these people being deported, they are a seriously nasty bunch.
It doesn't really matter about the legality of the issue. What counts is the howls of outrage that we're hearing now from TDS libtards, because people are being deported for supporting terrorists or being anti-semitic. Also, the LACK of howls of outrage when someone got kicked off a platform for stating something that, in retrospect, was pretty obvious.
Don't you feel that, just perhaps you are on the wrong side of history on this one?
"The article is talking about non-US citizens who openly support Hamas, so not covered by the 1st amendment."
We all know you read the article. There are a lot of things being covered, most of which are not even available to us. We do not get a full list of things that deport people, and yet we already have plenty of evidence that your statement is false and you knew it was. The article mentions that criticism of Charlie Kirk was sufficient. While there are probably lesser quotes that also earn that punishment, they collected some. Those quotes are not pleasant, stating that they are not unhappy about his death and openly calling him racist. Failure to mourn and applaud someone is not support for a designated terrorist group. Nor do you have any proof that the comments deemed antisemitic all took the form "The October 7th attack was great and I want to see more of it", yet you suggest as much. That got at least six and probably a lot more people deported since we all know the most severe examples are the ones that would be quoted in the message.
You have decided that, if you agree with the deportations, it's acceptable, which breaks your free speech absolutism argument into very small pieces. You have also decided that, to support that argument, you will decide what was said and what was not in direct contradiction to what we all read in the article. Neither is useful.
1) No, he was lying by omission and implication. He willfully misrepresented the way the body's defenses and infections work, as well as the value of vaccination. If they didn't have to be nice, I imagine the average immunologist would prefer to lay the both of you out cold.
2) The government brought him to the platform's more direct attention, and that he appeared to be violating their ToS. The government makes platforms aware of security threats, too. Nice try at false equivalencies, though.
3) Pull the other one, it's got bells on it. That's at least 70% lies by gas volume. The reason you don't lose sleep over them is because you don't think too hard about what's actually happening.
It's amazing that you even tried to backpedal further down that thread, especially after dropping "TDS libtards". And then you went on into more false equivalencies, plus the usual statistic-level lies equating support for Palestinians with supporting Hamas and wanting Israel to die. It's too inconvenient for your narrative to have someone able to ask, "Why does nobody want to talk about the Palestinians?" Maybe because then everyone would have to face the fact the fact the US been supporting mass killings of an occupied people, numerous violations of international law and crimes against humanity.
You say> "The article is talking about non-US citizens who openly support Hamas"
The article says the government "monitor these visa holders' social media accounts for support of Hamas, Palestine, or antisemitism... any individual that expresses non-conforming... views could be stripped of their visas."
So for NON-Hammas-Supporters, this includes those who express support of Palestine (perhaps supporting two-state solution - like most or all Republican presidents before Trump), or who say anything that can be labelled as antisemitism (which seems to mean criticism of Israel, these days).
You seem to be pretending (or mistakenly arguing, if we're being kind) that the government is not trying to restrict free speech.
Finally, whats a TDS libtard? You say it like it's a bad thing, but it's hard to tell exactly what one is.
Lies and misinformation are not free speech any more than the publication of child pornography.
Makes no difference who is spreading them, whether left, right, or over ever edge of an amplituhedron at once.
Being punted off twitter for spouting batshit nonsense is not suppression of free speech, anyone wanting to spread lies and misinformation is free to stand on the street corner and rant away, rights fully intact.
Please provide your address details so that I can pass on to Alex. He's been pretty successful in litigating against libel such as this in the past, and I'm sure would be quite happy to bankrupt you and add to his pile. Can you please qualify exactly what lies any misinformation you are talking about?
Anyway, it's just his opinion. That's how free speech works. We can then argue about it, and if someone is spreading lies and misinformation then people will eventually stop trusting them and go listen to someone else.
It does seem to me that if you are arguing for people who support Hamas, vs. someone who urged not to impose mandates for an new gene therapy... perhaps you are on the wrong side of history.
"He's been pretty successful in litigating against libel such as this"
No, he hasn't. he takes on actual cases that have merit. Your example is neither libel nor has merit. Even under the lower bar of UK law, what was said above wasn't even close to libel.
Don't worry- we all know that, of course, you wouldn't have. (*)
But you certainly *were* trying to suggest that you *could* have, that you were in the right and had been "libelled" when, of course, you were talking shite and Berenson wouldn't even been defending this sort of drivel, even theoretically.
(*) In part because, as I said, you're a keyboard warrior. And, again, this still smacks of you trying to minimise how serious/literal you were being based in being called out on it.
"But you certainly *were* trying to suggest that you *could* have,"
I'm impressed that you know with such certainty what's going on inside my head. That was also sarcasm BTW. I guess some people just don't understand sarcasm. I thought it was obvious.
I don't think "right wing" is the insult that it used to be. Or any kind of insult. You need to try harder, and label me as "far right", "hard right" or "nazi", or perhaps why not go for "actual hitler". It doesn't matter if I've said anything to make you believe that, just make stuff up. It'll help you win your argument, and get you lots of likes. You'll feel better about yourself afterwards for correcting the nasty internet man and putting him in his place.
I mean doesn't "right wing" just mean the same as "Conservative" (remember them?)
Hmm - not sure what was actually posted above is "batshit nonsense"...
Do Covid vaccines stop transmission? No they don't - he was right
Do Covid vaccines stop infection? No they don't - he was right
At best they reduce the severity of symptoms, but a prior infection would very likely also do that (which is why even though Covid is still around, it isn't killing people in any great numbers any more)
On the flip side, also not really a 1st amendment issue - more an Overton type issue - governments were initially terrified about the potential fallout and put the fear of god into the media, which in turn did the same to the general population, and nobody wanted to hear dissenting voices - Galileo would have been cancelled these days for postulating that the earth went round the sun...
Do Covid vaccines stop transmission? No they don't - he was right
It's not quite so black and white.
In an individual, vaccination reduces the severity and duration of symptoms, and therefore reduces the probability of transmission. It isn't a binary yes/no situation.
In a group, vaccination of a large proportion of the members reduces the average level of transmission to below the level at which infection snowballs, so 10 people will infect fewer than 10 others, and over a couple of cycles transmission stops. That's how smallpox was essentially wiped out.
Indeed we have established ad nauseam that people like Alex Berenson are self-serving liars, spouting trivially-disproven mistruths for the consumption of idiots and causing countless needless deaths in the process.
At least they're profiting from it though. It's the subintellects that repost that you have to feel sorry for; they really are just that dumb.
Those statements may be true, but by using them to advocate not using vaccines achieves two things; demonstrating a fundamental ignorance of how vaccines save lives, especially during pandemics, and scaring people away from the thing most likely to save their lives during a pandemic. Both these things are the opposite of good public health and, during a pandemic where millions of lives are at stake, such speech should be suppressed for the same reason shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre is illegal. Epidemiology is complex and unless you're prepared to speak to logos rather than pathos, your opinions are harmful.
The COVID pandemic killed 0.5% of Americans in the first year. Countries that implemented lockdown and mandatory immunisation had mortality rates less than 0.15%. Leaders of governments that did not act in the interests of the safety of their citizens during that time have the blood of their citizens on their hands.
"Those statements may be true, but by using them to advocate not mandating vaccines"
There, fixed that for you. He was objecting to the mandates. Makes the rest of your argument moot.
No, wait. I've re-read your last paragraph and it seems that you are actually advocating for mandatory immunisation for an new novel drug. Sorry, which countries did that, and how well did they fare long term? And what about the perfectly healthy people who would have barely benefited from the therapy at all, but who suffered and died as a consequence? Do you think a 20 year old, who would almost certainly have nothing worse than a cold (if anything) should be forced to take a therapy?
I'm pretty sure if you stop and think about it for more than a minute, you'll see that's a tad draconian.
This post has been deleted by its author
Quite. As we know, asymptomatic people transmit CV19 far less often. The vaccines make the virus far less symptomatic, sometimes asymptomatic, and sometimes prevent infection. All of that reduces infection rates of others - "flattening the curve".
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9588416/
Another complication is viral load; we know already that some of the most at-risk people for CV19 are medical staff, as their bodies were (certainly so in the limited PPE era) frequently exposed to large quantities of virus from infectious individuals who were undergoing significant symptoms because their bodies were less able to fight the virus (due to being older or immunocompromised). One of the very first recorded deaths due to CV19 was Dr. Li Wenliang, who was only 34; he was working in a ward with CV19 patients, and despite precautions, became infected, dying approximately a month later.
The whole situation over whether it is ethical or not to enforce vaccination is a political issue, as it goes to the heart as to whether one considers whether their inaction can be held against them. For instance, it is not illegal in the UK to not call for rescue if you find a collapsed person on the street. It is perfectly legal to walk on and go about the rest of your day. But it is certainly immoral. I view anti-vax in the same way, unless you have a medical reason not to, you should get vaccinated. For CV19 there is much less need now given the virus is not in vast circulation any more. But if you work or live around vulnerable people, getting a vaccination is a good idea and the moral thing to do.
"I view anti-vax in the same way, unless you have a medical reason not to, you should get vaccinated."
No one is taking the Covid-19 vaccinations any more. It's not even being offered to under 65s in the UK. Berenson was specifically talking about the Covid-19 treatment (not even actually a vaccine in the traditional sense)
"For CV19 there is much less need now given the virus is not in vast circulation any more."
It very much is in vast circulation, but has become a mild cold so no one cares. It's endemic. Hospitals are far more worried about other transmissible diseases.
"But if you work or live around vulnerable people, getting a vaccination is a good idea and the moral thing to do."
As the protection wears off completely after 5 months, you'd need to keep getting boosted every couple of months. I'm not willing to take that risk. But that's my choice, because it's not mandated in this country and it never was for most people. And that's how it should be. Let me make the choice based on my own medical needs balanced against what's best for the population.
As the protection wears off completely after 5 months, you'd need to keep getting boosted every couple of months.
Or now the Panicdemic has mostly fizzled out and a lot more is known about the virus, vaccines can be given to those most vulnerable. This, of course has put a serious dent in the drug dealers profits who wanted their bottom lines boosted for life.
.. because it's not mandated in this country and it never was for most people.
It kinda was, but mostly by doing the creepy compulsion thing. So restrictions on travel, free expression, freedom of assosciation. Or sometimes just freedom to work.
For a normal vaccine - yes, certainly, for Covid, certainly not, and this was Berenson's point:
Smallpox was vaccinated against worldwide and there have been no recorded cases since the late 70's - one of science's great success stories
Covid has been "vaccinated" against worldwide, and yet it is endemic in the population - regardless of how many vaccine shots you have had, you can still get it and you can still pass it on to others - so it's called a "vaccine" and it certainly seems to have protected large numbers of people against more severe symptoms, but it not's a vaccine as per the "previous" understanding of the meaning.
Actually, most vaccines only reduce chance of infection and/or symptoms and/or rate of transmission, exactly like the COVID vaccine. The influenza vaccines are an obvious example; they are generally a lot less effective than the COVID vaccine, but using them is still a good idea and people don't make such a big deal out of it. Many other vaccines that you'd think make you 100% immune actually might not work if your immune system is sufficiently screwed up for other reasons and your exposure is sufficiently high. All of this has been well known since vaccines were first invented.
It's not a coincidence that only smallpox was eradicated, even though we have effective vaccines for quite a lot of pathogens. That "effective" has never, ever, meant 100%; with COVID specifically, given the absurd transmission rate it has, eradication has never seriously been on the table. Complaining that a COVID shot is not 100% guaranteed to work forever and might have side effects is, essentially, complaining that it's not magical.
There's a difference between "vaccination" and "immunization." You're conflating the two. Smallpox and polio vaccines provide a high level of immunization; flu and COVID vaccines provide a lower degree of immunization, slowing the spread of those illnesses but not stopping them as effectively as the former two.
Smallpox and polio are easier to product a vaccine for as they change little over time but flu and COVID readily mutate, so those vaccines tend to be based on an older variant and possibly less effective against the latest/future meaning annual boosters
Lies and misinformation are not free speech any more than the publication of child pornography
I'm not sure what you mean by this, but in my non-lawyer opinion lies and disinformation are free speech. You are free to tell lies, although depending on context you may violate other laws.
I could say something like "Steve Button stomps on kittens" all I want and it's not a crime. I could put up billboards build websites hire skywriters march up and down main street shouting it into a megaphone etc. If there came a situation where Steve could prove monetary damagaes from somebody believing me, like he didn't get hired for a job or something, then maybe he could file a civil case and maybe I might end up in some financial trouble (if there isn't any proof that Steve Button ever even accidentally stepped on a cat's tail), but it's not a crime.
But if I say something like "Steve Button stomps on kittens and if I ever see him on the street I'm going to stab him in the neck for it" then I'm uttering death threats and that is and absolutely should be a crime.
Or if I say something like "Steve Button stomps on kittens and anyone who sees him on the street should beat him to death for it" then I'm inciting violence and that is and absolutely should be a crime.
Or if I say something like "Steve Button stomps on kittens and it's because he's one of those stinking Belgians they all do that all the time they can't help themselves it's in their blood to stomp every kitten they see to death" then that's hate speech and that can get a lot fuzzier with a lot more grey areas but in most places that's more or less of a crime and I kind of think it should be.
Still not crimes. Still wouldn't go to jail for saying "Steve Button stomps on kittens". Steve Button could file a civil case, and unless I can prove that Steve Button actually ever stepped on any kind of feline (because it's not slander or libel if it's true), then I could be ordered by the court to knock it off, maybe even pay monetary damages. I could not be sentenced to jail because it is not a crime. If I continued to say that "Steve Button stomps on kittens" after being ordered by the court not to then I definitely could be sent to jail, but not for the simple act of saying "Steve Button stomps on kittens", it would then be contempt of court or defying a court order which is and absolutely should be a crime. Lying in the first place is not a crime. Only if the lie leads to actual provable damages does it become a legal issue, but still not a criminal issue.
Not that I am trying to promote the act of telling lies! Nevermind the effect on Steve Button of it being out there that "Steve Button stomps on kittens", me being the nutbar who won't shut up about it certainly shouldn't help me with my job prospects either. I'm just saying that it is not and absolutely should not be a crime.
IANAL, but, having read a great deal about First Amendment litigation, my take is that, if one is not a lawyer, one needs to STFU about what is and is not protected because it's in constant flux and any particular litigation is going to succeed or fail on its particular merits. As ever, I tend to point people to the Popehat Report for a summary of First Amendment exceptions.
Separately, this article hardly contains "howls of outrage"; it's simply reporting on litigation which is currently occurring. Would you, "free speech absolutist," prefer that El Reg not cover this topic?
Finally, as other posters point out, there is a difference between pressure from the government and outright regulation. Pressure happens frequently (for example, the federal government has repeatedly pressured Hollywood to alter drug-related content, and, I'm sure, many other topics as well), but actually formalizing such pressure into a law or policy seems to be where it turns into a true First Amendment issue. In regard to the COVID question, I think there's room for reasoned debate on the topic; unfortunately, reasoned debate is a resource which remains in short supply when it comes to COVID-19.
In regard to the COVID question, I think there's room for reasoned debate on the topic; unfortunately, reasoned debate is a resource which remains in short supply when it comes to COVID-19.
Only in the US. The rest of the world seems to have no debate on the issue. The science of Covid is very clear to everyone else, and the origins also pretty much so.
And we're supposed to take you at your word that's ALL that he said?
Because I'd be willing to bet my life savings he went a lot further than that in some of his statements. Because all the nutjobs did, eventually, because they had to out nutjob each other to keep getting those juicy clicks they make a living off of.
"And we're supposed to take you at your word that's ALL that he said?"
No not at all. That's the Tweet that got him kicked off Twitter for about a year.
"Because I'd be willing to bet my life savings he went a lot further than that in some of his statements. Because all the nutjobs did, eventually, because they had to out nutjob each other to keep getting those juicy clicks they make a living off of."
He was a New York Times journalist. Was pretty careful about what he said, so I would not personally bet my life savings on that one. There were a lot of nutjobs around, saying some crazy shit, but as I remember he was one of the sensible ones.
yeah. I said I'm almost a free speech absolutist. I draw a quite big red line at calling for violence against people. Regardless of who the people are. Hamas are a terrorist organisation who have called for the destruction of "The West" and our way of life. They use rape and torture as weapons of war. If people are celebrating Oct 7th on their social media, they deserve to get booted out. If they make some sort of rational argument that they disagree with the Israeli government that's free speech and they should be left alone.
Berenson wasn't calling for anyone to cause violence. Has was arguing against mandating a new novel therapy. You should be able to have that argument. Even during a pandemic. Especially during a pandemic. I can even see the case for mandates in some circumstances (if virus was way more deadly, and treatment was way more effective)
I do not think the surveillance is targeting speech by citizens for incarceration.
I am pretty sure it's targeting non-citizens for incitement, etc. and to independently determine who is likely to be behind anti-semitic bullying (etc.) and violent demonstrations at universities.
I would expect that opinions alone are never sufficient reason for deportation on their own. Speech issues that are criminal relate to threats or incitement (yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater, calling for assassination, encouraging a crowd to riot, etc.), not merely expressing opinions alone (which may draw unwanted attention, but that's it). It's a bit better than arresting comedians at Heathrow for posting opinions online...
Everyone should expect that if you are a guest in someone's house, you don't spend the entire time COMPLAINING about THEM and disturbing everyone ELSE.
I have seen clips of video where the officials in the US state that the constitution etc., does not apply to non-US people.
If this is the case, then it does mean you have to be careful on what you say about US people, if you want to visit the US.
If free speech does not apply to foreign people, then maybe the US should make this explicitly clear.
Again, in practice this is true. But the Supreme Court has ruled that non-citizens have first amendment rights. Whether this applies to immigration has never been fully settled. The court has ruled in both directions numerous times, that non-citizens first amendment expressions can't be held against them, at the same time that the government has broad powers to deport people/deny entry. Though for the most part the latter cases have been in regard to unauthorized immigration.
Also, AFAIK, the "US Border" is quite nebulous and not where most people assume it is. Something about "within 50 miles of a "border entry point" or something, which includes any and all airports which accept (or maybe can accept) international flights,. So quite some land area of the US has special "protections" where immigration officials have strong powers and some parts of the constitution may not be enforceable under some circumstances.
>> If free speech does not apply to foreign people, then maybe the US should make this explicitly clear.
The USA with its BS "exceptional" ideas about itself is really nothing more than the Übermensch. Non-American practically equates to non-human.
Every democratic constitution applies basic rights to whoever is within their jursdiction - not to citizens only. Otherwise US citizens abroad shoud be very, very careful... but a US citizen here has the same freedom of speech I have. And if they bashes my country in a social post, it's not a reason to deny them entry - only a real criminal threat would allow it.
The interpretation of the Heritage Foundation & C. is an authoritatian and racists one - the same that was used to approve Segregation despite what the Constitution clearly says.
Trump is taking lessons from Putin and Xi, and well, if US citizens can't understand thier Constition, next year they will celebrate the demise of the USA as an example of a democratic country,
>> Trump is taking lessons from Putin and Xi
No need for Trump to look abroad. He can look in the mirror. Or just take examples from Jefferson Davis, et al. There's a lot of people with that mindset still around.
>> if US citizens can't understand thier Constition
I think they understand it. While some Americans champion it, it is clear that many others do not support it. When it is necessary to send in federal troops to face off against the national guard to ensure schoolchildren can go to school, you know how rotten some people are.
I am quite happy to say fuck trump and his wannabe fascist dictator of a tin pot third world country ambitions.
I've no desire to visit the US, nothing I have seen makes it an attractive place and the past 9 years have actively confirmed my belief it's a gold plated turd of a country run by a bunch of extremist nutjobs who are hell bent on destroying anything that conflicts with their narrow minded religious zealotry and greed.
>> I've no desire to visit the US
I've visited several times in the past, and have nothing negative to say about those trips. Quite the opposite - I have fond memories and still speak highly of the USA as it was then.
But I don't want to go there again. The USA is now a different place in all sorts of ways. It's a pity.
I'm in the same situation. I lived and worked in the USA for several years and thoroughly enjoyed the experience. Since then I have had several extended holidays Stateside all of which have been extremely enjoyable. Sadly the USA of today is not the country I loved and I would be very apprehensive about returning. I also fear for the safety of my many friends stateside.
I live in hope that sanity will return, but I can't see it happening with the current regime.
I have seen clips of video where the officials in the US state that the constitution etc., does not apply to non-US people
And I have seen clips of video where the serving US Vice President gets very agitated and preachy about wanting an entire continent of people who already have very strong free speech rights to have free speech rights, because they're that important. It'd be nice if the administration put it's policy where it's big mouth was.
I think the U.S. diplomatic missions should just outright torture every non-US-citizen before issuing visas to them. Water boarding, strip searching, cattle proding, anal probing, whip lashing, fingernail pulling, a short stay in gitmo, and so forth ...
This way we will all be much more secure, finally, after these centuries of tourists (so-called) coming in to BBQ our pet dog-&-cats while digging fentanyl tunnels and doing unspeakable acts of LGBTQ+ love that goes against our white-only christian-only anglo-saxon-only protestant-only male-dominated conservative-only paradise of uniformed loyalist conformity that we so cherish, rightly.
It's an emergency that warrants the Orange Monarch in Offal Orifice Cheese to swiftly takeover all governmental powers of the legislative and judiciary branches of the constitutional tree, until all rats and cockroach pests are exterminated after being put to good use in labor camps for building a beautiful casino riviera overlooking the Gulf of America that glorifies like-minded billionaires who've passed Laura Loomer's buttcrack feeler gauge digital caliper loyalty comptrol inquisition, with jets of flying colors, in gold-plated airplanes, and chihuahuas!
Totalitarian isolationism buttressed in big beautiful land border walls, sea border walls, air border walls, golden domes walls, Dogecoins, and underground border walls, with a very big chimney going way up into space so we can get some real clean fresh air from up there, is the only way forward into our glorious nostalgic past as we make America cartoonishly grrrreat again, medievally, on the candy asses of the multitude sub-hum-an hordes.
Please join me in this narcissistic megalomania adventure as we make all dignified human beings the World over puke their guts out in disgust, indefinitely! </sarc>
Yeah, and make that double for vegetarian Telugu invaders that want to replace us all in the bedsheets of strong white christian men as our dearly departed martyr prophet Charlie Kirk enimentally wrathed: "they want to replace white Anglo-Saxon Christian Protestants with Mexicans, Nicaraguans, with El Salvadorians”, just as "prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact"! </neurosis>
At such desperate times, the hurl of reversed gastrointestinal chunder may be one's last most potent Hail Mary bioweapon ... just as long as you don't also faint, imho! ;(
Re: "The EFF said previously that although Trump's executive orders are designed to target student visa holders, because these individuals' networks likely include fellow students that are US citizens, the surveillance likely infringes their free speech rights also."
Ironically, one of Trump's legal cases (and, as a result, his claims his phones were illegally tapped) likely came from the fact that one of his lawers had *his* phone tapped because of some other wrongdoing by him or someone else, and Trump was caught because he phoned the tapped phone.
You do know that even Disney has said it was their decision to pull Kimmel off the air due to his statements. In other words, when you talk of Trump causing him to be censured, you are just spewing your agenda across the internet. Please research before you put words to paper, or pixels.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
