- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Bondi Twitter trying to clean up the mess early this AM.
Posted on 9/16/25 at 8:52 am to Schleynole
Posted on 9/16/25 at 8:52 am to Schleynole
quote:
No, stick to the constitution which says no law.
You mean, like this part?
quote:
the right of the people peaceably to assemble
Is threatening someone and inciting violence considered "peaceably" in your view?
1
Posted on 9/16/25 at 8:52 am to BCreed1
quote:
Some people don't understand the difference between speech that is based on hate that uses slurs...etc and speech that is a call to action via death threats.
Yesterday that person was Pam Bondi
Posted on 9/16/25 at 8:53 am to Radio One
She’s not only become a major disappointment, she’s also an idiot.
Posted on 9/16/25 at 8:56 am to Geekboy
Get rid of her yesterday. This administration is not serious with her at AG. Such a terrible appointment, the second she was announced I started a thread on here saying what a disaster it was.
Posted on 9/16/25 at 8:57 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
You mean, like this part?
Here's the whole thing
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That's my entire argument. It's not hard to understand. No law means bo law
Posted on 9/16/25 at 8:58 am to TigerCoon
quote:
so,
1) "I'm gonna kill that person" is a threat.
2) "somebody should kill that person" isn't a threat, but it's inciting violence.
2 is protected?
Yes, and #1 can even be protected in some specific cases:
quote:
During a public rally near the Washington Monument, Watts, 18, joined a small group of fellow teens and adolescents to discuss police brutality. He told the others he had been drafted and had to report the following Monday. He reportedly said, “If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.”
quote:
The petitioner’s speech was at most a crude statement of political opposition to the President and did not amount to a threat. A statute criminalizing speech must be weighed against the First Amendment and speech that is truly a threat must be distinguished from protected speech.
Posted on 9/16/25 at 9:01 am to Ingeniero
that's nuts, right?
Posted on 9/16/25 at 9:03 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Cite specifics.
Hate speech is not protected when it incites lawless actions
---
This is LITERALLY how the UK enforces their draconian regulation on speech
I don't give rat's arse as to what some bimbo paints on a sign regarding unspecified "hate speech," SFP. Nor do I care a whip about supposed "Hate Speech" unhinged from circumstance. But that is not where we are.
Circumstance is relevant.
Factor in a dose of what goes around, comes around for folks like the AZ bimbo in your pic, and hopefully there will be a lesson involved.
Posted on 9/16/25 at 9:04 am to Smeg
So you are saying she should be fired because of her speech? Was it directing or inciting violence, doxxing another? I look forward to the RICO case being built to be used to take down so many who committed criminal acts for certain organizations that harmed at least two victims, directly or indirectly.
States have 5 year SOL while Bondi and her buddies have a 10 year SOL.
IT WILL BE GLORIOUS!!
States have 5 year SOL while Bondi and her buddies have a 10 year SOL.
IT WILL BE GLORIOUS!!
Posted on 9/16/25 at 9:05 am to Timeoday
She has done such a good job on the court side of things. It’s a shame that when she opens her mouth, she says stupid things.
Posted on 9/16/25 at 9:05 am to Schleynole
quote:
Here's the whole thing
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That's my entire argument. It's not hard to understand. No law means bo law
OK well, multiple Supreme Courts have disagreed that inciting violence and making legitimate threats is not protected by the first amendment. Hard to imagine disagreeing with that, and I find it hard to believe we'll ever have a Supreme Court, of any ideology, that will change that.
Posted on 9/16/25 at 9:07 am to Radio One
Posted on 9/16/25 at 9:08 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
What doxing is: distributing someone's personal information that is not publicly available
So This kind of posting is a federal crime. Arrest the criminal.
Posted on 9/16/25 at 9:08 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
quote:
Did she actually post that doxing is a federal crime?
What doxing is: distributing someone's personal information that is not publicly available
What doxing is not: sharing your words and information that you publicly shared with the world on social media
Doxxing is not illegal in either of those cases. If you can research and discover the identity of an online personna and then you post that factual information, then you are protected under the 1st Amendment.
Doxxing is a Terms of Service violation for some platforms, but it is not illegal.
Confusion comes as instances of Doxxing that utilize illegal means, such as hacking or unauthorized access by other means, are violations of Federal and State statutes.
Posted on 9/16/25 at 9:10 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
OK well, multiple Supreme Courts have disagreed that inciting violence and making legitimate threats is not protected by the first
Supreme court has been terrible at upholding the Constitution. 1st amendment is not complicated
Posted on 9/16/25 at 9:11 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 9/16/25 at 9:14 am to Radio One
I've been neutral on her until now, and I don't really even care that she articulated whatever this was so poorly
But at a time where we need the DOJ building RICO cases against known lefty non-profits with ties to domestic terror groups, the fact that she made her stand on this instead is mind-blowing.
On a side note, any R who spends their day talking about Hamas instead of the left (save perhaps Rubio who has reason to do so) should get our full ire.
But at a time where we need the DOJ building RICO cases against known lefty non-profits with ties to domestic terror groups, the fact that she made her stand on this instead is mind-blowing.
On a side note, any R who spends their day talking about Hamas instead of the left (save perhaps Rubio who has reason to do so) should get our full ire.
Posted on 9/16/25 at 9:16 am to Smeg
quote:
She said "hate speech isn't protected", but it is.
Learn to read.
quote:
Hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is NOT protected by the First Amendment
Posted on 9/16/25 at 9:27 am to Radio One
Finger wagging Pam is a do nothing idiot.
Posted on 9/16/25 at 9:27 am to NashvilleTider
I only pay attention to her actions. Believe me, they speak much louder than her words.
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News