What part of the quote below suggests encouragement of violence? Seems like one person’s pov about what Kirk espoused.
> In one screenshot shared by the agency, a person identified as an Argentine national said Kirk “devoted his entire life spreading racist, xenophobic, misogynistic rhetoric.”
American Citizens have the right to offensive free speech in America, a foreigner wishing to obtain a VISA does not and would be an idiot to think he should be allowed to visit if he was posting things like "f... ck America"
Ackshually there is part of the first amendment that applies to certain people, specifically the right for "the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The courts have prior held that non-immigrant visas and illegal immigrants usually aren't "the people" referenced by the constitution, which is why they have no right to bear arms which also uses "the people" in reference to the people with that right. If they don't have the right to bear arms, it follows they are not "the people" and thus have no implicit protection to parts of the first amendment that explicitly assign protection to "the people."
It may be up for interpretation whether the immigrants in question were petitioning the government for grievances, if so that may have not been protected if they are not people.
Ahhh.. 1A, but only for specific groups, in specific contexts, as long as you're ok with it. Yes, that's exactly what they meant when they wrote it. le sigh.
I hope your enjoying the current state of the country. It's people just like you that brought it about, so carry on with the winning!
It's a gross verbal onanism over someone's death, mixed with the typical baseless dehumanization. If you want this sort of person in your country, my condolences.
please point out any and all verbs or other terms that call for any kind of action. so you found 'remove', right? it's a call for ceasing friendship. is that considered violence?
Words do have meanings. That comment may be cruel, but nothing in it is dehumanizing -- unlike, for example, this quote:
"Mere weeks before his death, Kirk reveled in Trump's deployment of federal troops to DC. 'Shock and awe. Force,' he wrote. 'We're taking our country back from these cockroaches.'"
The hypocrisy is that, when somebody was banned from a mere social media website for praising or implicitly encouraging violence, the argument was always skewed toward the legal (e.g. "doesn't meet the bar for imminent action"). Yet when confronted with the fact that it was a private platform, the arguments skewed away from the legal ("free speech absolutism"). And of course now that it's physical people being banned from a physical country, somehow the arguments are now reversed on principles, weaker, less passionate - despite the situation being more concrete/dramatic, rather than just social media moderation.
It's never been about free speech - not morally nor legally - and the fact that they pretended it was is insulting to American principles.
It’s not just whataboutism when the comparison points to a broader systemic process of eroding rights and worsening conditions. It is also an observation of this next stage in that process and how it departs from the last.
Ultimately, I think it’s self-serving/pointless Daily Show “gotcha” finger-waving trying to face down a steamroller of hate, but it’s more than whataboutism.
I'm a citizen and describing speech I may engage in such as saying that Kirk “devoted his entire life spreading racist, xenophobic, misogynistic rhetoric” as something that the government doesn't approve of creates a chilling standard for my own speech.
So my speech, you authoritarian jerk. I should be able to say stuff like that- why the fuck should the government get to say what is okay for folks to say?
We often accept some limits on speech - such as disallowing threats or blackmail. But on what planet is some person stating that Charlie Kirk "devoted his entire life to spreading racist, xenophobic, misogynistic rhetoric" an endorsement of Kirk's murder?
How is anyone supposed to believe the administration is being at all genuine when it categorizes that sentence as an endorsement of murder and then applies punitive action toward the man who wrote it?
Are we now at the point where (in Soviet Russian style) the government gleefully makes absurd factual claims and administers capricious punishments specifically as a demonstration of the government power to oppress?
The legal theory is that you, as a citizen, have a clear free speech right to say that, but that foreigners outside the U.S. don't have any free speech right at all under the U.S. constitution to say that. (In a related legal doctrine, denying people a visa in retaliation for their specific actions is officially "not a punishment".)
I think this theory is pretty broken, but I also find that there are a lot of things where longstanding legal doctrines give the government humongous amounts of power and discretion, and they often did not just, like, make up the concept just 10 minutes ago. Often it's arguably been the rule for many decades.
The thing that I'm more familiar with in this category is border searches. My mom was surprised to hear that people's devices (including U.S. citizens' devices) were being searched at the border without suspicion, something that would obviously violate the fourth amendment in a regular domestic context. Something my mom didn't know, but I happened to know from having studied and written about this in the past, is that we have legal precedents going back decades that specifically say that that is a power that the government has.
Now, I would like to see a rule that the fourth amendment does apply at the border, but we've been far away from that for years, with important cases in 2004 and 1985 and even longer ago saying that it doesn't. (In this case, it is held not to apply to either citizens or non-citizens in the border search context.)
So, I would encourage people to have a broader sense of historical perspective about the staggering amount of power and discretion that the government has repeatedly been given, and the considerable number of limitations that have been held to apply to various legal rights, while also opposing this and trying to change it.
Edit: In terms of foreigners' political expression, I believe we've had rules in the U.S. at least since the 1920s that foreigners ought to be excluded from moving here, or even from visiting, for some kinds of radical politics. I also find this notion concerning, I just want to point out that it's in some sense a 100-year-old concept rather than like a 1-month-old concept.
I understand that your theory holds a lot of sway.
I am not in favor of doing anything that cedes more power to the assholes who want it.
I'm not a legal scholar but it certainly feels like "removing citizenship from classes of folks" so that they can be deported to purify the body of the volk is a thing that has been done, so anything that we can to maintain the rights of non-citizens seems to be reflexively self-interested.
I do understand that the government of the US will do whatever it feels like- it's never felt like that they wouldn't, like, drone strike a citizen if they felt like it. As much as I despise the views of folks like Randy Weaver, it's been a long time since I thought the US might not just shoot folks if it felt like it to.
So here is a question:
if they don't really care much about the doctrines of laws, why should me and mine?
Well, one point is just that the Trump administration is often accused of making up government powers when, on inspection, they're kind of dusting off powers that were actually on the books for a long time. Or perhaps dusting off and oiling?
Now, I think some of their interpretations are unreasonable. But some of them are actually just making things more routine and visible that have happened under many different administrations, doing those same things on a larger scale. That's why I mentioned border searches: lots of people (like my mom!) first heard about this recently and thought that the Trump administration somehow invented this power. But in fact, we've seen thousands, or tens of thousands, of border searches of electronic devices, including those of citizens, under all presidential administrations.
Even for things like tariffs where the administration's interpretations just sound silly to me, we've had every single administration for decades declare and renew multiple "emergencies" in order to impose various kinds of trade restrictions by executive fiat (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Emergency_Econom...). Some of those emergencies have probably been going on longer than the lifetimes of most people reading this, and they led to very expansive executive control over trade and trade-adjacent foreign policy issues.
In the Trump administration case, you can find increasing numbers of border and immigration actions, like border searches, that are "political", but I remember some that were "political" under the George W. Bush administration, again including against U.S. citizens.
Similarly, people's visas were cancelled and denied for political reasons all the time under prior administrations, just on a smaller scale because it wasn't (many?) people's job to identify targets for this, and we didn't have social media, and we didn't have government programs to search or archive social media in an immigration context. But we had the "revocation or denial of a visa is not a punishment" (and is generally not appealable for cause...!) doctrine for ages.
I've kind of just repeated myself a bit here, but I guess my overall point is that I see lots of government powers as something like loaded weapons that we've left lying around for many years. (Or we could use some other metaphor like toxic waste, landmines, whatever kind of danger is seemingly largely inert but can still eventually be dangerous.) So it feels to me like people are concerned to see the current administration pick up or play around with some of those weapons, but to me the big picture is that lots of people should have been able to agree to dispose of some of them longer ago: to say that we don't want the government to have so much power and we don't want the president to have so much discretion.
Furthermore, I even think we could still say that, and possibly find broader political consensus about that idea than we could about the personal virtue of Trump, Biden, Trump, Obama, or George W. Bush as a wielder of some of that power.
Not to understate the actual reason that I find authoritarian controls on speech outrageous: I 100% agree that it's wrong to revoke visas over politically-protected speech.
I just find it easier to communicate "a basic sense of self interest" to the sociopaths who are happy to see state power used against strangers their country is hosting. If the state can do it to those folks, they will eventually do it to you and I.
It used to be the case that treating strangers and foreigners -better- than we might treat ourselves was a goal for humans. You can read it in the religious texts of the assholes I live around who pretend that their religion should rule all the subjects of the land they have occupied.
It's interesting to see the positive views of benevolence, tolerance, hospitality, and justice toward strangers in many of the ancient Mediterranean cultures. I wonder how typical or atypical those are across time and across cultures, and what kinds of limitations are placed on them.
Apart from Exodus 23:9 and similar commandments (and specific stories of hospitality in the Bible), I think of the idea of ξενία xenia from ancient Greek culture, and then the proverbially famous Arab and Middle Eastern hospitality today.
There is an old joke attributed (variously) to Ronald Reagan or Yakov Smirnoff: "In Soviet Russia, there is freedom of speech. In America, there is also freedom after speech."
Government sanctions (not simply those limited to imprisonment) used as a punishment for speech is most definitely a free speech issue.
Not sure where you're going with this. Obviously the immigrants who were speaking are the ones whose speech is being regulated by the government.
If you want to argue that immigrants don't have protection under the first amendment, clearly they do per centuries of jurisprudence.
If you want to argue that this is one of those "no freedom from consequences" situations, recognize that this isn't a private party. You or I can cancel someone by refusing to deal with them, but the government is expressly prohibited from from doing so by the clear text of the first amendment.
I mean.. I dont agree with the Trump administration on nearly anything. But deciding that they dont like what an outsider says and blocking them entrance based on that is not a free speech issue, they're not citizens.
Edit: yeah ok fair call. it needs to apply to anyone, still the US needs to be able to say : I dont like you, you cant enter.
Note, even if this were true, the entire point of being the free speech party or being a free speech absolutist was that those people supported free speech above and beyond the legal concept of free speech. They explicitly built their free speech crusade against moderation actions on privately owned websites.
"still the US needs to be able to say : I dont like you, you cant enter."
So, here is a question: is it for the US gov to tell me, a citizen "we don't like you and wouldn't let you enter if you weren't already here"? Because that certainly seems to be what they are saying? Does it make sense why I'd be worried about the government of the only place where I have citizenship letting me know that they would expel me if I hadn't been born here?
Yes, and you can come back here and see all the comments that either say its justified in this case. Or, comments will state that the other side did it first.
I'll remove my comment if a clear case exists that is not generally celebrating it here.
I see so many posts on here that only see the world in black and white. It’s either or, never shades of gray.
No political party that supports free speech claimed it was so absolute that we ignore the national security implications of non-citizens promoting violence against US citizens.
Both parties have denied Visas for social media posts in the past - in fact that has been going on since it started many years ago. It's only news now for some strange reason. Although, I'm sure it's "different this time(tm)".
You provided zero evidence that Democrats have denied visas based on social media posts. You just mentioned the number of border crossings in 2021 to 2025. What point are you trying to make here?
Are you seriously trying to tell me that the Democrats have never denied a visa? Oh. I see now that you added “based on social media posts”. Still, I fail to believe that Democrats would admit someone into the country knowing that they posted something on social media that demonstrated the applicant is lying, made threats against political figures in the US, posted to known terrorist or friends with known terrorists, etc.
In fact, the Biden administration sued for the ability to continue the Trump policy of looking into social media. Here is an excerpt from the lawyer that was suing the Biden administration.
“We’re disappointed that the Biden administration has decided to double down on this Trump-era policy of mass surveillance of visa applicants’ social media,” said Carrie DeCell, senior staff attorney with the Knight First Amendment Institute.””
Young Republican leadership's internal language about their countrymen, writ in rampant death & torture threats, unhinged bigotry and hatred, heartbreaking callousness and disregard for the welfare of others, and all of it festooned with a sociopathic posture of contrition to masquerade an utter perversion of the values of brotherhood and personal "responsibility"...
“Party of free speech” (tm)
Encouragement of violence is not free speech.
Per American jurisprudence, this is false. Incitement / true threats are very narrow.
What part of the quote below suggests encouragement of violence? Seems like one person’s pov about what Kirk espoused.
> In one screenshot shared by the agency, a person identified as an Argentine national said Kirk “devoted his entire life spreading racist, xenophobic, misogynistic rhetoric.”
American Citizens have the right to offensive free speech in America, a foreigner wishing to obtain a VISA does not and would be an idiot to think he should be allowed to visit if he was posting things like "f... ck America"
The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech."
It's not a right granted to only certain groups. It's a restriction on what Congress, and by extension the government, can do.
Ackshually there is part of the first amendment that applies to certain people, specifically the right for "the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The courts have prior held that non-immigrant visas and illegal immigrants usually aren't "the people" referenced by the constitution, which is why they have no right to bear arms which also uses "the people" in reference to the people with that right. If they don't have the right to bear arms, it follows they are not "the people" and thus have no implicit protection to parts of the first amendment that explicitly assign protection to "the people."
It may be up for interpretation whether the immigrants in question were petitioning the government for grievances, if so that may have not been protected if they are not people.
Ahhh.. 1A, but only for specific groups, in specific contexts, as long as you're ok with it. Yes, that's exactly what they meant when they wrote it. le sigh.
I hope your enjoying the current state of the country. It's people just like you that brought it about, so carry on with the winning!
Who is it that conveniently cut out the cruder bits of that post?
https://x.com/StateDept/status/1978218114622910799
It's a gross verbal onanism over someone's death, mixed with the typical baseless dehumanization. If you want this sort of person in your country, my condolences.
And what's your excuse for most of the Republican party and its media supporters who regularly call for violence against people they don't like?
please point out any and all verbs or other terms that call for any kind of action. so you found 'remove', right? it's a call for ceasing friendship. is that considered violence?
You do realize what happened with Charlie Kirk is the apex of what happens when dehumanization language is left unfettered, right?
Words do have meanings. That comment may be cruel, but nothing in it is dehumanizing -- unlike, for example, this quote:
"Mere weeks before his death, Kirk reveled in Trump's deployment of federal troops to DC. 'Shock and awe. Force,' he wrote. 'We're taking our country back from these cockroaches.'"
[dead]
[dead]
The hypocrisy is that, when somebody was banned from a mere social media website for praising or implicitly encouraging violence, the argument was always skewed toward the legal (e.g. "doesn't meet the bar for imminent action"). Yet when confronted with the fact that it was a private platform, the arguments skewed away from the legal ("free speech absolutism"). And of course now that it's physical people being banned from a physical country, somehow the arguments are now reversed on principles, weaker, less passionate - despite the situation being more concrete/dramatic, rather than just social media moderation.
It's never been about free speech - not morally nor legally - and the fact that they pretended it was is insulting to American principles.
Did JD Vance care about these subtleties in Munich?
Whataboutism.
It’s not just whataboutism when the comparison points to a broader systemic process of eroding rights and worsening conditions. It is also an observation of this next stage in that process and how it departs from the last.
Ultimately, I think it’s self-serving/pointless Daily Show “gotcha” finger-waving trying to face down a steamroller of hate, but it’s more than whataboutism.
Are you being deliberately obtuse, or are you just this obtuse?
[flagged]
I'm a citizen and describing speech I may engage in such as saying that Kirk “devoted his entire life spreading racist, xenophobic, misogynistic rhetoric” as something that the government doesn't approve of creates a chilling standard for my own speech.
So my speech, you authoritarian jerk. I should be able to say stuff like that- why the fuck should the government get to say what is okay for folks to say?
We often accept some limits on speech - such as disallowing threats or blackmail. But on what planet is some person stating that Charlie Kirk "devoted his entire life to spreading racist, xenophobic, misogynistic rhetoric" an endorsement of Kirk's murder?
How is anyone supposed to believe the administration is being at all genuine when it categorizes that sentence as an endorsement of murder and then applies punitive action toward the man who wrote it?
Are we now at the point where (in Soviet Russian style) the government gleefully makes absurd factual claims and administers capricious punishments specifically as a demonstration of the government power to oppress?
The legal theory is that you, as a citizen, have a clear free speech right to say that, but that foreigners outside the U.S. don't have any free speech right at all under the U.S. constitution to say that. (In a related legal doctrine, denying people a visa in retaliation for their specific actions is officially "not a punishment".)
I think this theory is pretty broken, but I also find that there are a lot of things where longstanding legal doctrines give the government humongous amounts of power and discretion, and they often did not just, like, make up the concept just 10 minutes ago. Often it's arguably been the rule for many decades.
The thing that I'm more familiar with in this category is border searches. My mom was surprised to hear that people's devices (including U.S. citizens' devices) were being searched at the border without suspicion, something that would obviously violate the fourth amendment in a regular domestic context. Something my mom didn't know, but I happened to know from having studied and written about this in the past, is that we have legal precedents going back decades that specifically say that that is a power that the government has.
Now, I would like to see a rule that the fourth amendment does apply at the border, but we've been far away from that for years, with important cases in 2004 and 1985 and even longer ago saying that it doesn't. (In this case, it is held not to apply to either citizens or non-citizens in the border search context.)
So, I would encourage people to have a broader sense of historical perspective about the staggering amount of power and discretion that the government has repeatedly been given, and the considerable number of limitations that have been held to apply to various legal rights, while also opposing this and trying to change it.
Edit: In terms of foreigners' political expression, I believe we've had rules in the U.S. at least since the 1920s that foreigners ought to be excluded from moving here, or even from visiting, for some kinds of radical politics. I also find this notion concerning, I just want to point out that it's in some sense a 100-year-old concept rather than like a 1-month-old concept.
I understand that your theory holds a lot of sway.
I am not in favor of doing anything that cedes more power to the assholes who want it.
I'm not a legal scholar but it certainly feels like "removing citizenship from classes of folks" so that they can be deported to purify the body of the volk is a thing that has been done, so anything that we can to maintain the rights of non-citizens seems to be reflexively self-interested.
I do understand that the government of the US will do whatever it feels like- it's never felt like that they wouldn't, like, drone strike a citizen if they felt like it. As much as I despise the views of folks like Randy Weaver, it's been a long time since I thought the US might not just shoot folks if it felt like it to.
So here is a question:
if they don't really care much about the doctrines of laws, why should me and mine?
Well, one point is just that the Trump administration is often accused of making up government powers when, on inspection, they're kind of dusting off powers that were actually on the books for a long time. Or perhaps dusting off and oiling?
Now, I think some of their interpretations are unreasonable. But some of them are actually just making things more routine and visible that have happened under many different administrations, doing those same things on a larger scale. That's why I mentioned border searches: lots of people (like my mom!) first heard about this recently and thought that the Trump administration somehow invented this power. But in fact, we've seen thousands, or tens of thousands, of border searches of electronic devices, including those of citizens, under all presidential administrations.
Even for things like tariffs where the administration's interpretations just sound silly to me, we've had every single administration for decades declare and renew multiple "emergencies" in order to impose various kinds of trade restrictions by executive fiat (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Emergency_Econom...). Some of those emergencies have probably been going on longer than the lifetimes of most people reading this, and they led to very expansive executive control over trade and trade-adjacent foreign policy issues.
In the Trump administration case, you can find increasing numbers of border and immigration actions, like border searches, that are "political", but I remember some that were "political" under the George W. Bush administration, again including against U.S. citizens.
Similarly, people's visas were cancelled and denied for political reasons all the time under prior administrations, just on a smaller scale because it wasn't (many?) people's job to identify targets for this, and we didn't have social media, and we didn't have government programs to search or archive social media in an immigration context. But we had the "revocation or denial of a visa is not a punishment" (and is generally not appealable for cause...!) doctrine for ages.
I've kind of just repeated myself a bit here, but I guess my overall point is that I see lots of government powers as something like loaded weapons that we've left lying around for many years. (Or we could use some other metaphor like toxic waste, landmines, whatever kind of danger is seemingly largely inert but can still eventually be dangerous.) So it feels to me like people are concerned to see the current administration pick up or play around with some of those weapons, but to me the big picture is that lots of people should have been able to agree to dispose of some of them longer ago: to say that we don't want the government to have so much power and we don't want the president to have so much discretion.
Furthermore, I even think we could still say that, and possibly find broader political consensus about that idea than we could about the personal virtue of Trump, Biden, Trump, Obama, or George W. Bush as a wielder of some of that power.
Second this and even when these restrictions apply to foreign nationals as visa enforcement it’s still a chilling effect on American citizens.
Not to understate the actual reason that I find authoritarian controls on speech outrageous: I 100% agree that it's wrong to revoke visas over politically-protected speech.
I just find it easier to communicate "a basic sense of self interest" to the sociopaths who are happy to see state power used against strangers their country is hosting. If the state can do it to those folks, they will eventually do it to you and I.
It used to be the case that treating strangers and foreigners -better- than we might treat ourselves was a goal for humans. You can read it in the religious texts of the assholes I live around who pretend that their religion should rule all the subjects of the land they have occupied.
It's interesting to see the positive views of benevolence, tolerance, hospitality, and justice toward strangers in many of the ancient Mediterranean cultures. I wonder how typical or atypical those are across time and across cultures, and what kinds of limitations are placed on them.
Apart from Exodus 23:9 and similar commandments (and specific stories of hospitality in the Bible), I think of the idea of ξενία xenia from ancient Greek culture, and then the proverbially famous Arab and Middle Eastern hospitality today.
There is an old joke attributed (variously) to Ronald Reagan or Yakov Smirnoff: "In Soviet Russia, there is freedom of speech. In America, there is also freedom after speech."
Government sanctions (not simply those limited to imprisonment) used as a punishment for speech is most definitely a free speech issue.
Revoking visas for exercising freedom of speech is infringing freedom of speech.
Clear government penalties for speech.
Not sure where you're going with this. Obviously the immigrants who were speaking are the ones whose speech is being regulated by the government.
If you want to argue that immigrants don't have protection under the first amendment, clearly they do per centuries of jurisprudence.
If you want to argue that this is one of those "no freedom from consequences" situations, recognize that this isn't a private party. You or I can cancel someone by refusing to deal with them, but the government is expressly prohibited from from doing so by the clear text of the first amendment.
Stop trolling.
I mean.. I dont agree with the Trump administration on nearly anything. But deciding that they dont like what an outsider says and blocking them entrance based on that is not a free speech issue, they're not citizens.
Edit: yeah ok fair call. it needs to apply to anyone, still the US needs to be able to say : I dont like you, you cant enter.
Would you consider yourself a supporter of free speech?
Do you think it should apply only to citizens?
We can default to the Supreme Court's ruling in Bridges vs Wixon: "Freedom of speech and of press is accorded to aliens residing in this country.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=107220981080384...
Note, even if this were true, the entire point of being the free speech party or being a free speech absolutist was that those people supported free speech above and beyond the legal concept of free speech. They explicitly built their free speech crusade against moderation actions on privately owned websites.
"still the US needs to be able to say : I dont like you, you cant enter."
So, here is a question: is it for the US gov to tell me, a citizen "we don't like you and wouldn't let you enter if you weren't already here"? Because that certainly seems to be what they are saying? Does it make sense why I'd be worried about the government of the only place where I have citizenship letting me know that they would expel me if I hadn't been born here?
These seem to be deportations of people already in the country which is vastly different.
But even barring people from entry because they don't toe a partisan party line is pretty ludicrous for the "land of the free".
Tell me where in the first amendment it says these rights only apply to citizens.
So hypothetically, a future Dem administration can deport right-leaning visa holders?
Yes, and you can come back here and see all the comments that either say its justified in this case. Or, comments will state that the other side did it first.
I'll remove my comment if a clear case exists that is not generally celebrating it here.
I see so many posts on here that only see the world in black and white. It’s either or, never shades of gray.
No political party that supports free speech claimed it was so absolute that we ignore the national security implications of non-citizens promoting violence against US citizens.
Both parties have denied Visas for social media posts in the past - in fact that has been going on since it started many years ago. It's only news now for some strange reason. Although, I'm sure it's "different this time(tm)".
Could you share some examples of when democrats have denied visas?
[flagged]
> Without a doubt, Democrats have denied visas.
You provided zero evidence that Democrats have denied visas based on social media posts. You just mentioned the number of border crossings in 2021 to 2025. What point are you trying to make here?
Are you seriously trying to tell me that the Democrats have never denied a visa? Oh. I see now that you added “based on social media posts”. Still, I fail to believe that Democrats would admit someone into the country knowing that they posted something on social media that demonstrated the applicant is lying, made threats against political figures in the US, posted to known terrorist or friends with known terrorists, etc.
In fact, the Biden administration sued for the ability to continue the Trump policy of looking into social media. Here is an excerpt from the lawyer that was suing the Biden administration.
“We’re disappointed that the Biden administration has decided to double down on this Trump-era policy of mass surveillance of visa applicants’ social media,” said Carrie DeCell, senior staff attorney with the Knight First Amendment Institute.””
https://knightcolumbia.org/content/biden-administration-tell...
Well, I hear there are very fine people on both sides. [0]
[0] https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/116973/documents/...
https://archive.is/jHog0
The degrees of hypocrisy at play in the GOP today are striking:
Trump / Kirk U.S. Medal of Freedom hit parade...
https://www.independent.co.:uk/news/world/americas/us-politi...
Young Republican leadership's internal language about their countrymen, writ in rampant death & torture threats, unhinged bigotry and hatred, heartbreaking callousness and disregard for the welfare of others, and all of it festooned with a sociopathic posture of contrition to masquerade an utter perversion of the values of brotherhood and personal "responsibility"...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
[flagged]
[flagged]
You're next.
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]