Anonymous ID: d94640 Nov. 16, 2023, 12:16 p.m. No.19926977   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>6988 >>7000 >>7009 >>7146

I don't think remaining anonymous is inherent in First Amendment free speech, just as yelling. "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre is not protected speech,

 

HOWEVER

 

I think choosing to be anonymous is part of the right to privacy (under reasonable restrictions - as long as you are not breaking a law) and to an extent where keeping your identity to yourself can be applied to the right of self-incrimination (taking the 5th) and the application of rights under whistleblower laws.

 

BirdBrain just wants it to be legal to dox her critics and at the same time enable the lib DOJ to inhibit free speech just like a good RINO would.

Anonymous ID: d94640 Nov. 16, 2023, 12:38 p.m. No.19927114   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>7125

Yet another case where the libs want the ability to do things they want to deny to the rest of us.

 

Brandon can try to be anonymous - use fake names - but poor ol' anons better not try that.

Anonymous ID: d94640 Nov. 16, 2023, 12:49 p.m. No.19927184   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>7202

>>19927146

If there is a fire, sure, but there are places where falsely creating a panic and causing others to get injured will get you in serious trouble.

 

There's always one out there that has to pick at everything - the point was and is, first amendment is not absolute for all circumstances.