Purposeful disinfo shill:
Bill is aimed only at candidates and political action committees.
Does NOT apply to memes.
https://legiscan.com/TX/text/HB366/id/3197809
Section 255.0015. (Subpart (a)
(a) This
section applies only to a person who:
(1) is an officeholder, candidate, or political committee;
I wonder why you keep leaving that out, disinfo shill?
https://legiscan.com/TX/text/HB366/id/3197809
nah,…..boring spam,……KANGS,…..reeeeeeeeee
It was being falsely presented here as applying to memes. Numerous times,….by the same IP hopping poster,…..after many replies showing it did not apply to memes.
While the first amendment argument has SOME merit.
That's not what he's being called out for.
^^^^THIS^^^^^
The Marxo-Fascist propaganda shills use this "manufactured outrage" technique as a reverse psychology ploy to cause friendly fire on our part.
Maybe,…maybe not. Could also be the moral equivalent to "shouting fire in a crowded theatre".
The orogeny of the law was when the Marxists began flooding Google search with fake headlines claiming to be from news agencies, about two months before the election.
The Republicans or Rhinos,…whatever,….don't want a repeat of this.
Yes,…let's wallow in the semantics of it and not address the original reason why he was being called.
Here's my semantic chess move in answer to your semantic chess move:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater
(ahem): Holmes, writing for a unanimous Court, ruled that it was a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917 (amended by the Sedition Act of 1918) to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I. Holmes argued that this abridgment of free speech was permissible because it presented a "clear and present danger" to the government's recruitment efforts for the war. Holmes wrote:
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic… The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.
OK,…so I have a First Amendment Right to say you raped a 2 year old boy,…put up flyers claiming such,….purchasing commercials claiming such,…..contact your friends an family members with such claims,…and thus being protected by that right,…should face no consequences?
Absolutely not. The truth vs abject lies and disinformation are two different things.
That's right,….I can be sued for publicly saying you raped a 2 year old boy,….paying for commercials claiming such,….contacting your employer with those claims etc.
So then,…consequences SHOULD be paid by someone going to those extremes to lie and manipulate public sentiment?
Your semantics bore me now.
Filtered for general douch-baggery.
I have to go take my morning shit anyway.
I'll dedicate an extra wipe for you.