The following is a 4 message exchange between 3 users
@ParrotStellaPatriot1yr1Y
She said this: "threatening circumstances FROM THE GOVERNMENT'S PERSPECTIVE".
It's an absurdity: she was actually saying that the government gets to decide when it feels threatened and then have the power to quash speech it doesn't like under those circumstances.
It doesn't get worse than that.
No, that wasn't what she was arguing. She was arguing that the "threatening circumstance," her hypothetical being a danger to the society, not specifically the government. Her example was, as usual, endangering children. It's the same argument as the excuse to ban Trump or Alex Jones from social media via coercion by government actors. The defintion of going around the 1st amendement.
@ParrotStellaPatriot1yr1Y
You are correct, but when government actors talk about threats to "society" that they need special powers to combat, you know it actually means threats to the government itself.
Of course, or to be more inclusive, threats to the oligarchs and various corp donors who have bought the government. Her argument is bald-face ignorance about the purpose of the first amendment. Kind of embarrassing.
Join in on more popular conversations.