Melllvar

Ask Robespierre how that works out in the end.

I’m not familiar with the idiom “spitting on the wrong horn.” Here’s the context of the quote:

But weigh this [the evils of liberty] against the oppression of monarchy, and it becomes nothing. Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem [“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery”]. Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs. I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.

I feel like you’re arguing a point I haven’t taken a position on. I’m only saying that arrests like this seem insane to an American sensibility.

The conservatives gave it the power to prosecute people for protesting climate change and made it inadmissible evidence for them to explain the reasons for their protest

But I will say that changing the law like that is also insane to an American sensibility.

It’s less about thinking she shouldn’t be punished for her speech, and more about thinking that the state shouldn’t have the power to punish speech. To quote Thomas Jefferson, “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.”

It’s not a question of what speech I think should be allowed, but rather a question of what powers I think the state should have.

I’m not confusing them. But I’m also not a fan of using the power if the state to punish people I disagree with, even if they say vile things. Such power will inevitably be abused, turned against me, etc.

It’s safer in the long run to preserve free speech and expression, even if it means people get away with being asshats.

I don’t think that would do a lot in terms of protecting unpopular speech.

The problem is in who decides what speech should be punished.

The value of the DNS is that we all use the same one. You can declare independence, but you’d lose out on that value.

A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal conduct. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen.

https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges

Not that SCOTUS is held to the same code of conduct that all other federal judges are held to, of course.

That’s the opposite of what the court said.

Well, no. The courts struck down Trump’s Tiktok ban because he used an executive order that overstepped his authority.

Tiktok has been a subject of national security concerns since at least 2020.

A veto means the resolution does not pass in the first place.

US, China, Russia, France, and the UK have veto power over Security Council resolutions because they are the ones who are called upon to actually enforce Security Council resolutions.

deleted by creator

“It is very important that there is this meeting, this meeting between men and women, because today the ugliest danger is gender ideology, which cancels out differences,” the pope said during an audience with members of the French-based academic organization Research and Anthropology of Vocations Institute (CRAV).

He’s demanding that everyone conform to his narrow worldview… in the name of preserving our differences?

That’s some impressive mental gymnastics, even for a Pope.

deleted by creator

Based on the show they’ve put on in Ukraine, and leaving aside nuclear weapons, I don’t think the Russian military is a credible threat to NATO.