UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

from the attached link...
------------------------
The typical Federal Bureau of Investigation special agent is white, male, and middle-aged, often with a military background — in short, drawn from the segment of the U.S. population most likely to support GOP nominee Donald Trump.
-----------------------

There's a non-zero chance that those former FBI agents are just really fine Americans who continue to want the best for this country...and have the background to spot 'bad actors' more quickly than the average citizen...


Link: https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/fbi-donald-trump-base-230755

(no message)

to stifle any investigation and dissemination of Hunter Biden's laptop story prior to the election...and, given that former FBI agents are said to have been employed by Twitter at the time, the inference is clear...the former FBI employees were in league with their former buddies...and if you're not supporting Trump, then you're essentially a "Lib"...at least that's what I get out of all this.

The term is not important...the concept or assertion that there was "Collusion" between current and former FBI agents working together to oppose Trump and his HB claims, is...I'm not buying what Irishize, and others like him are selling.


Link: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbi-warned-twitter-hunter-biden-hack-leak-operation-before-expose-censored-2020

(no message)

They were working directly with Twitter moderators and using their influence to get those mods to remove posts (posts that had nothing criminal in them) and to suspend users (users that are law-abiding US citizens).

If they weren't violating the First Amendment, they were butting right up against it. I wish we could get beyond the point of arguing whether or not this happened. It happened. At this point, I'd like to hear a coherent argument for why people think this behavior from our government, is acceptable.

Have no problem with this.

Or it could be that these guys are just incredibly stupid. The longer I'm here, the more I think it might be the latter.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

That's your question?

but in reality, you haven't answered the question? I've posted the 1st amendment in a link to smashmouth so
let's see if you can read and define why "the FBI had 80 agents working on Twitter accounts" is a "violations
of the First Amendment...".

This is something I know you cannot explain. But do try, Stark. It would be good to see if you can stand up
for your posts.

And on individual posts. I know you read that part so I don't understand the confusion. Are you confused because you don't consider that govt infringement on speech? Why are you confused?

(no message)

That are relevant to the discussion. The bad faith arguments about something that is so fundamentally wrong is...garbage, I guess is the Mark-friendly term. It's not the accurate term, but it'll have to do on this [edited by Mark]-ass board.

Don’t hold me to that - been a while since I read it. But no way there would be all this freak out if it didn’t.

(no message)

shown irrefutably.

Have you turned over your brain completely to autopilot control of your political spinners like these others? Does none of this bug you?

The USA PATRIOT Act (commonly known as the Patriot Act) was a landmark Act of the United States Congress, signed into law by President George W. Bush. The formal name of the statute is the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001, and the commonly used short name is a contrived acronym that is embedded in the name set forth in the statute.[1]

The Patriot Act was enacted following the September 11 attacks and the 2001 anthrax attacks with the stated goal of tightening U.S. national security, particularly as it related to foreign terrorism. In general, the act included three main provisions:

expanded surveillance abilities of law enforcement, including by tapping domestic and international phones;
easier interagency communication to allow federal agencies to more effectively use all available resources in counterterrorism efforts; and
increased penalties for terrorism crimes and an expanded list of activities which would qualify for terrorism charges.
The law is controversial due to its authorization of indefinite detention without trial of immigrants, and due to the permission given to law enforcement to search property and records without a warrant, consent, or knowledge. (Though generally, they need a warrant or consent to conduct the search.)[2] Since its passage, several legal challenges have been brought against the act, and federal courts have ruled that a number of provisions are unconstitutional.

It contains many sunset provisions beginning December 31, 2005, approximately four years after its passage. Before the sunset date, an extension was passed for four years which kept most of the law intact. In May 2011, President Barack Obama signed the PATRIOT Sunset Extensions Act of 2011, which extended three provisions.[3] These provisions were modified and extended until 2019 by the USA Freedom Act, passed in 2015.[4] In 2020, efforts to extend the provisions were not passed by the House of Representatives, and as such, the law has expired


Link: You should read this whole thing. It's an amazing document - tell me how upset you are now

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

"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."

As for Freedom of speech:

"The Free Speech Clause went through several iterations before it was adopted as part of the First Amendment. James Madison drafted an initial version of the speech and press clauses that was introduced in the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789. Madison’s draft provided: The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.1 The House of Representatives special committee rewrote Madison’s language to make the speech and press clauses read: The freedom of speech and of the press, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to apply to the government for redress of grievances, shall not be infringed.2 The Senate subsequently rewrote the speech and press clauses to read: That Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.3 Later, the Senate combined the religion clauses and the speech and press clauses4 and the House and Senate agreed to final language in conference.

There was relatively little debate over the speech and press clauses in the House, and there is no record of debate over the clauses in the Senate.5 During debate over the clauses, Madison warned against the dangers that would arise from discussing and proposing abstract propositions, of which the judgment may not be convinced. I venture to say, that if we confine ourselves to an enumeration of simple, acknowledged principles, the ratification will meet with but little difficulty.6 The general statement of these simple principles, however, gave rise to controversy when applied to specific government actions.7
The Sedition Act of 1798 sparked one such controversy that crystallized a national awareness of the central meaning of the First Amendment.8 The law punished anyone who would write, print, utter or publish . . . any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame . . . or to bring them . . . into contempt or disrepute.9 While Thomas Jefferson and Madison condemned the act as unconstitutional, the Adams Administration used it to prosecute its political opponents.10 Although the Supreme Court never ruled the Sedition Act unconstitutional prior to its expiration in 1801, the Court later recognized a broad consensus from the political and judicial branches that the act was unconstitutional.11

"The overbreadth doctrine focuses on the need for precision in drafting a statute that may affect First Amendment rights, and more concretely, allows a special kind of facial challenge to statutes.1 Ordinarily, to prevail in a facial challenge—a claim challenging a statute on its face, rather than only in certain applications—a litigant must ‘establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the [law] would be valid,’ or show that the law lacks ‘a plainly legitimate sweep.’2 Accordingly, if a statute sweeps in both protected and unprotected activity, the Court will ordinarily only invalidate its application to protected conduct.3 In the context of the First Amendment, however, the Supreme Court has allowed a person whose own conduct may not be constitutionally protected to bring a facial challenge to a law, if the statute is so broadly written that it sweeps in protected speech and could therefore have a deterrent effect on free expression.4 The overbreadth doctrine thus allows the facial invalidation of a law that punishes a ‘substantial’ amount of protected free speech, ‘judged in relation to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep.’5 For example, in United States v. Stevens, the Supreme Court applied the overbreadth doctrine to rule unconstitutional a federal law that criminalize[d] the commercial creation, sale, or possession of certain depictions of animal cruelty.6 The Court described the statute as a criminal prohibition of alarming breadth, and concluded that the presumptively impermissible applications of [the law] . . . far outnumber any permissible ones.7
The Supreme Court has recognized, however, that there are substantial social costs created by the overbreadth doctrine when it blocks application of a law to constitutionally unprotected speech, or especially to constitutionally unprotected conduct.8 The Supreme Court has cautioned that facial [i]nvalidation for overbreadth is ‘strong medicine’ that is not to be ‘casually employed.’9 The requirement that a law must be substantially overbroad accounts for this concern.10 In addition, the Supreme Court has said a state statute should not be deemed facially invalid unless it is not readily subject to a narrowing construction by the state courts, and its deterrent effect on legitimate expression is both real and substantial.11 Further, the Court has said that overbreadth analysis does not normally apply to commercial speech.12"


Link: It's lengthy but maybe you'll read it

(no message)

prol·ly
[ˈprälē]
ADVERB
INFORMAL
probably:
"you prolly know this already" · "You are prolly the last person he should be asking for advice"