Sharon Stone says Lorne Michaels “saved her life” after protestors stormed her SNL monologue
Stone recounted the story of the SNL creator's unexpected, action-packed heroism during a podcast conversation with Dana Carvey and David Spade
Aux News Lorne Michaels
Sharon Stone painted an unexpectedly heroic portrait of Saturday Night Live creator Lorne Michaels during a podcast appearance this week, describing an incident in which Michaels—whose various descriptors in pop culture do not normally include the phrase “action-packed”—apparently moved swiftly to “save her life” when protestors tried to storm the stage while Stone was delivering an SNL monologue in 1992.
This is per the latest episode of Dana Carvey and David Spade’s Fly On The Wall podcast, in which the duo of former SNL stars had Stone on as their guest. (Including a moment when Carvey formally apologizes for a sketch from her episode, where he plays an Indian man forcing Stone to strip to go through airport security; Stone didn’t sound all that bothered by it, honestly.) The most shocking part of the interview, though, came when Stone described an incident where, during her monologue, a group of protestors “stormed the stage, saying they were going to kill me.” She then describes Michaels screaming at his crew and security to stop “watching the fucking show” before physically restraining protestors himself. And then they went live on TV!
Although it’s not in evidence on the official SNL YouTube broadcast of Stone’s monologue—a pretty basic, uh, Basic Instinct riff that features Michaels alongside several crew members leering at Stone while she recreates the film’s most famous scene—you can find reports of the incident from the time. Six people were apparently arrested, after infiltrating the show’s set by dressing and acting like production crew. In the podcast interview, Stone says they were protesting her early work with AIDS—due to early skepticism that organizations like The Foundation For AIDS Research were actually working on behalf of people with the disease—although spokespeople at the time said they were protesting the “homophobia and misogyny” of Hollywood, due to Basic Instinct’s depiction of a bisexual woman as a depraved serial killer.
Anyway, please enjoy the mental image of Lorne Michaels wading into the fray, five whole seconds before the show’s cameras apparently went live. He apparently extended Stone a standing offer to return to the show, possibly out of apology—but for some reason, she never took him up on it.
115 Comments
I’m sure Carvey interrupted the story a couple times with unrelated Ross Perot impersonations.
“Perot? Not gonna do it. Nah gan doot” said Carvey.
Wouldn’t be prudent
Don’t worry about him, he’s got $3 billion more at home.
“Now that’s just sad…”
Have you seen my charts?
Then Stone interrupts and Carvey says, “Can I finish?”
Boy the stories keep getting wilder with this one…
I get that this is a confusing set of circumstances, but I had to reread one sentence a few times to understand the situation. To begin with, ‘work with AIDS’….? Humanitarians, spokespeople, etc. don’t generally ‘work with AIDS’ (or another condition), unless the writer means she was diagnosed with the disease and continued to work otherwise. Or perhaps she really was working ‘with’ AIDS – you know, making sure it had access to used needles and blood banks: ‘In the podcast interview, Stone says they were protesting her early work with AIDS—due to early skepticism that organizations like The Foundation For AIDS Research were actually working on behalf of people with the disease—although spokespeople at the time said they were protesting the “homophobia and misogyny” of Hollywood, due to Basic Instinct’s depiction of a bisexual woman as a depraved serial killer.’
“To begin with, ‘work with AIDS’….?”Is EXACTLY the wording that activists use.That isn’t the problem. The problem is her painting herself as a victimized hero when the actual protest was over the wildly homophobic movie she was in.
I feel you. I got fired from the suicide hotline due to a similar misunderstanding.
Hughes is worried that one of those other fucking hacks like Barbanti has taken away his status of “Worst AV Club writer”. This is his attempt to reclaim the crown of shame.
Un-hunh.
I suspect it looked something like this:
lolllllllllllllllllllllllllll
“He apparently extended Stone a standing offer to return to the show, possibly out of apology—but for some reason, she never took him up on it.”
She never hosted again, but she DID “return to the show” randomly just a few months ago on on the Aubrey Plaza episode
Is January 2023 still “just a few months ago”?
Guess it was longer ago that I realized. Thank God you came along to correct me!!!
I apologize profusely for not double-checking first. I hope I don’t go to jail for making a mistake of this magnitude.
Unbunch those panties, you fucking clown who stars his own posts.
They’re not in a bunch; I was just really sorry that I thought Sharon Stone’s SNL appearance was more recent than it actually was. I’ve literally lost sleep over this mistake and I’m so, so thankful that you pointed it out to me. (I’ve now liked your comments in the hope that it makes amends and you feel better about my inferiority)
According to this site’s psycho stalker commentor “Causing Your Cognitive Dissonance” (deeply ironic name), the protestors have a first amendment right to violently disrupt her performance. This stalker has spent months arguing just this in an attempt to “disprove” cancel culture. I await her response in 3…2…1…
You are the one stalking this actual site. LOL Why are you here? I certainly never said anything about a right for people to be violent, but since you can’t ever make a point with facts you resort to lying.
“ This stalker has spent months arguing just this in an attempt to “disprove” cancel culture.”
LOL look at you just make things up! Of course people get canceled, it’s called social consequences and people have the right to criticize and say what they want.
Sorry courts and the law don’t agree with you, it must be tough being so fucking stupid and having the words remind you of that so often.
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH LOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLGO FUCK YOURSELF STALKER
Say the guy stalking this entire site. You have zero self awareness.
AHAHAHAHAH I’M STALKING AN ENTIRE SITE, POSTING COMMENTS OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN, AND I HAVE A CHROME EXTENSION LETTING ME KNOW WHEN YOU POST, RIGHT? NO? THAT’S YOU? HAHAHAHHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHEAT SHIT.THE DEAN OF BERKELEY LAW SCHOOL:EAT SHIT AND GET A FUCKING LIFE.
You are literally on here to shit on progressives and the topics these sites are about. These are not even the only websites you said you look for progressives on.
“[2.] “Heckler’s veto” could also refer to a more direct form of suppression: Again to quote Black’s Law Dictionary, “An interruptive or disruptive act by a private person intending to prevent a speaker from being heard, such as shouting down the speaker, hurling personal insults, and carrying on loud side-conversations.” (See, e.g., Harcz v. Boucher (W.D. Mich. 2021).)Such a heckler’s veto doesn’t itself violate the First Amendment, because it involves solely nongovernmental action (e.g., shouting down a speaker).”https://reason.com/volokh/2022/03/25/hecklers-veto-two-related-meanings/
“When someone exercises their First Amendment right to free speech, the government is not allowed to shut down the speech just because other people don’t like the message that is being conveyed. This is known as the rule against a “heckler’s veto.”https://www.aclumich.org/en/cases/hecklers-veto“A heckler’s veto occurs when the government accepts restrictions on speech because of the anticipated or actual reactions of opponents of the speechAlthough some scholars make reference to a string of heckler’s veto cases, the idea appears across a wide range of cases in First Amendment law as a label critical for any claim, made in defense of the government’s suppression, that speech inciting hostile reactions may be restrained.A heckler’s veto “doctrine” has sometimes been articulated as the principle that the Constitution requires the government to control the crowd in order to defend the communication of ideas, rather than to suppress the speech.”https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/hecklers-veto/The legal issues come when the government shuts down the speech because they are worried about people being upset. It’s not illegal for people to be upset and shout
Can An Individual Commit A First Amendment Violation?The short answer to the question of whether an individual can is no. The First Amendment speaks directly to the government’s role in your freedoms; it does not govern how individual people interact.https://www.brownfirmpllc.com/can-an-individual-violate-my-first-amendment-rights/
Does the First Amendment apply to private companies or individuals’ conduct?Generally, no. The First Amendment applies only to governmental action. So it’s only governmental action that we can address using the First Amendment, including applying it to the states through the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.https://www.chandralaw.com/faqs/what-is-a-violation-of-my-first-amendment-rights
Liberalism is defined by sources other than you or me. Someone’s words or positions either conform to that definition or they do not. You want to add exceptions to the definition and make it different for some undefined period of time. Without a source, that’s just your retarded opinion. You have to prove your context is relevant with a source. You can’t because it is not relevant and everything in the universe grasps that but you.I DEFY YOU TO COPE WITH THESE FACTS DO IT CUNT
It makes no sense to say a PREVIOUSLY segregated society changed the definition liberal when it was invented during a far more segregated and racist time period. In order to be logically consistent you have to admit that either King isn’t liberal or the CRT proponents you vilify as illiberal are just as liberal as he is for having the same views.I DEFY YOU TO COPE WITH THESE FACTS DO IT CUNT
You are still a pussy in denial. Redlining is explicitly racist and happening now. That is systematic racism. That’s in addition to the previous science you had a meltdown over after you bothered to pay attention to the proof YOU put forth and realized it all said you were wrong.science > youYou are a tyrant, a bigot, and a pathetic fucking joke.I DEFY YOU TO COPE WITH THESE FACTS DO IT CUNT
Every court case on the subject says I’m right. Your quote from Miami university says I’m right. The 6th circuit decision says I’m right. Even sources you post say I’m right, and you are too fucking stupid to understand what they say.THE FUCKING FIRST AMENDEMENT SAYS I’M RIGHT IN PLAIN FUCKING ENGLISH.Miami University agreeing with me on what the court decision said: “The 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (the circuit in which Miami University is located) has expressly rejected the notion that speech can be suppressed or punished merely because of the likely reaction of the listeners.That refers to the government taking action because the audience is angry. It does not refer to the audience being disruptive. You are a moron who has no reading comprehension.Big OOOPPPSSS, learn to read.The 6th Circuit agrees with me:“The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit sitting en banc found that Wayne County had violated the right to freedom of expression of a Christian Group, the Bible Believers”“ As the crowd became more hostile, the WCSO informed the Plaintiff-Appellants that, because their conduct was inciting the crowd, they would be escorted out of the festival. The WCSO informed the Plaintiff-Appellants that if they refused to leave, they would likely be cited.”Your own sources agreeing with me:“ It has long been recognized in constitutional law that the “heckler’s veto” — defined as the suppression of speech in order to appease disruptive, hostile, or threatening members of the audience — can be as much a threat to rights of free expression as government censorship.”LOL this is talking about the government suppressing speech exactly like I’ve been saying. IT’S TELLING YOU THE HECKLER’S VETO IS GOVERNMENT ACTION NOT THE AUDIENCE. Jesus you are dumb. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO HAS NO READING COMPREHENTION. Every. Single. Legal. Case. is about government suppression of speech. YOU KNOW THIS.When you do your little Google searches you need to understand the topic enough to know that the Heckler’s Veto most often refers to the government shutting down speech due to concerns over crowd hostility. That is what the decision you posted was about, GOVERNMENT shutting down speech and violating rights. You need to read past headlines and take some reading comprehension courses (Big LOL again at the idea you are a writer with such poor skills LOL) because you are the dumbest motherfucker in any room.
And seriously, who between us needs a life? I have friends and fun hobbies you try and make fun of me for because you are a jealous loser that no one likes. You stalk multiple websites that cater to people and topics you hate just to be an asshole troll. No one with a good life who is mentally stable does that.Your entire fucking life revolves around being a victim! You were a victim at work, your a victim of DEI, progressives are racist against you, it’s all the books you read. It’s YOUR WHOLE FUCKING LIFE. It’s so all consuming that you seek out multiple websites devoted to topics you hate just to troll. No one who feels the need to go to places they dislike to be an asshole is mentally well or having a good life. And no one who throws around racial and homophobic slurs like you do isn’t a bigot.
“NO ONE WITH A GOOD LIFE WHO IS MENTALLY STABLE DOES THAT.”YOU MEAN ENDLESSLY STALKING ME WITH YOUR ILLIBERAL, INTERNET SLEUTHERY ABOUT TOPICS THE ACLU AND BERKELEY LAW FUCKING DISAGREE WITH YOU ON???????YOU JUST POSTED 10 FUCKING TIMES LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOYOU ARE AN AUTISTIC, ILLIBERAL, INSANE STALKER CUNT WHO PLAYS DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS LOLOLOLLOLOLLOLOLOLOLLOLOOLLOLOLLLLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLLLOLOOLOLLOOLLOLLOOLLLOLOLLOOLOLLOLLOLLOLOOLOLOGOODBYE, ELF CUNT.
No, I mean your continued existence on this website just to be a troll. Why else are you here? You are on a nerd site that caters to nerd and the things they like trying to use the term as an insult and taking a shit on the topics. You have never said a single positive thing, your entire reason for being here is trolling. You are a bitter person wallowing in victimhood seeking out more bitterness.
Trying to make fun of me for having fun hobbies I enjoy with friends only makes you look like a dumbass jealous loser here for exactly the reasons I stated. This site IS FOR PEOPLE WHO PLAY D&D WHY ARE YOU HERE RETARD?
“[2.] “Heckler’s veto” could also refer to a more direct form of suppression: Again to quote Black’s Law Dictionary, “An interruptive or disruptive act by a private person intending to prevent a speaker from being heard, such as shouting down the speaker, hurling personal insults, and carrying on loud side-conversations.” (See, e.g., Harcz v. Boucher (W.D. Mich. 2021).)Such a heckler’s veto doesn’t itself violate the First Amendment, because it involves solely nongovernmental action (e.g., shouting down a speaker).”https://reason.com/volokh/2022/03/25/hecklers-veto-two-related-meanings/
“When someone exercises their First Amendment right to free speech, the government is not allowed to shut down the speech just because other people don’t like the message that is being conveyed. This is known as the rule against a “heckler’s veto.”https://www.aclumich.org/en/cases/hecklers-veto“A heckler’s veto occurs when the government accepts restrictions on speech because of the anticipated or actual reactions of opponents of the speechAlthough some scholars make reference to a string of heckler’s veto cases, the idea appears across a wide range of cases in First Amendment law as a label critical for any claim, made in defense of the government’s suppression, that speech inciting hostile reactions may be restrained.A heckler’s veto “doctrine” has sometimes been articulated as the principle that the Constitution requires the government to control the crowd in order to defend the communication of ideas, rather than to suppress the speech.”https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/hecklers-veto/The legal issues come when the government shuts down the speech because they are worried about people being upset. It’s not illegal for people to be upset and shout
Can An Individual Commit A First Amendment Violation?The short answer to the question of whether an individual can is no. The First Amendment speaks directly to the government’s role in your freedoms; it does not govern how individual people interact.https://www.brownfirmpllc.com/can-an-individual-violate-my-first-amendment-rights/
Does the First Amendment apply to private companies or individuals’ conduct?Generally, no. The First Amendment applies only to governmental action. So it’s only governmental action that we can address using the First Amendment, including applying it to the states through the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.https://www.chandralaw.com/faqs/what-is-a-violation-of-my-first-amendment-rights
Liberalism is defined by sources other than you or me. Someone’s words or positions either conform to that definition or they do not. You want to add exceptions to the definition and make it different for some undefined period of time. Without a source, that’s just your retarded opinion. You have to prove your context is relevant with a source. You can’t because it is not relevant and everything in the universe grasps that but you.I DEFY YOU TO COPE WITH THESE FACTS DO IT CUNT
It makes no sense to say a PREVIOUSLY segregated society changed the definition liberal when it was invented during a far more segregated and racist time period. In order to be logically consistent you have to admit that either King isn’t liberal or the CRT proponents you vilify as illiberal are just as liberal as he is for having the same views.I DEFY YOU TO COPE WITH THESE FACTS DO IT CUNT
You are still a pussy in denial. Redlining is explicitly racist and happening now. That is systematic racism. That’s in addition to the previous science you had a meltdown over after you bothered to pay attention to the proof YOU put forth and realized it all said you were wrong.science > youYou are a tyrant, a bigot, and a pathetic fucking joke.I DEFY YOU TO COPE WITH THESE FACTS DO IT CUNT
Every court case on the subject says I’m right. Your quote from Miami university says I’m right. The 6th circuit decision says I’m right. Even sources you post say I’m right, and you are too fucking stupid to understand what they say.THE FUCKING FIRST AMENDEMENT SAYS I’M RIGHT IN PLAIN FUCKING ENGLISH.Miami University agreeing with me on what the court decision said: “The 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (the circuit in which Miami University is located) has expressly rejected the notion that speech can be suppressed or punished merely because of the likely reaction of the listeners.That refers to the government taking action because the audience is angry. It does not refer to the audience being disruptive. You are a moron who has no reading comprehension.Big OOOPPPSSS, learn to read.The 6th Circuit agrees with me:“The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit sitting en banc found that Wayne County had violated the right to freedom of expression of a Christian Group, the Bible Believers”“ As the crowd became more hostile, the WCSO informed the Plaintiff-Appellants that, because their conduct was inciting the crowd, they would be escorted out of the festival. The WCSO informed the Plaintiff-Appellants that if they refused to leave, they would likely be cited.”Your own sources agreeing with me:“ It has long been recognized in constitutional law that the “heckler’s veto” — defined as the suppression of speech in order to appease disruptive, hostile, or threatening members of the audience — can be as much a threat to rights of free expression as government censorship.”LOL this is talking about the government suppressing speech exactly like I’ve been saying. IT’S TELLING YOU THE HECKLER’S VETO IS GOVERNMENT ACTION NOT THE AUDIENCE. Jesus you are dumb. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO HAS NO READING COMPREHENTION. Every. Single. Legal. Case. is about government suppression of speech. YOU KNOW THIS.When you do your little Google searches you need to understand the topic enough to know that the Heckler’s Veto most often refers to the government shutting down speech due to concerns over crowd hostility. That is what the decision you posted was about, GOVERNMENT shutting down speech and violating rights. You need to read past headlines and take some reading comprehension courses (Big LOL again at the idea you are a writer with such poor skills LOL) because you are the dumbest motherfucker in any room.
WOW 8 MORE COPYPASTA POSTS. WHAT A FULL LIFE YOU HAVE.WHY DO THE DEAN OF BERKELEY LAW AND HEAD OF ACLU DISAGREE WITH YOU? SURELY THEY HAVE THE SAME INFORMATION AS YOU DO, WHY DO THEY DISAGRE????eat shit and get a life
The fact that you are so hung up on info that causes you cognitive dissonance and takes less than 5 minutes is hilariously pathetic and indicative of you lack facts.
WHY DO YOU THINK THE FUCKIGN COURTS DISAGREE WITH YOU? WHY DO YOU THINK ANYTHING ELSE IS A BETTER SOURCE THAN THE FUCKING COURTS AND THE FUCKIGN ACTUAL LAW?
Damn you are retarded and apparently so are your sources, since the courts and law disagree. Or you know, they are talking about the first as a larger concept beyond the law while I’m talking about THE FUCKING LAW.
How many times have you claimed to be done now? LOPLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
“[2.] “Heckler’s veto” could also refer to a more direct form of suppression: Again to quote Black’s Law Dictionary, “An interruptive or disruptive act by a private person intending to prevent a speaker from being heard, such as shouting down the speaker, hurling personal insults, and carrying on loud side-conversations.” (See, e.g., Harcz v. Boucher (W.D. Mich. 2021).)Such a heckler’s veto doesn’t itself violate the First Amendment, because it involves solely nongovernmental action (e.g., shouting down a speaker).”https://reason.com/volokh/2022/03/25/hecklers-veto-two-related-meanings/
“When someone exercises their First Amendment right to free speech, the government is not allowed to shut down the speech just because other people don’t like the message that is being conveyed. This is known as the rule against a “heckler’s veto.”https://www.aclumich.org/en/cases/hecklers-veto“A heckler’s veto occurs when the government accepts restrictions on speech because of the anticipated or actual reactions of opponents of the speechAlthough some scholars make reference to a string of heckler’s veto cases, the idea appears across a wide range of cases in First Amendment law as a label critical for any claim, made in defense of the government’s suppression, that speech inciting hostile reactions may be restrained.A heckler’s veto “doctrine” has sometimes been articulated as the principle that the Constitution requires the government to control the crowd in order to defend the communication of ideas, rather than to suppress the speech.”https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/hecklers-veto/The legal issues come when the government shuts down the speech because they are worried about people being upset. It’s not illegal for people to be upset and shout
Can An Individual Commit A First Amendment Violation?The short answer to the question of whether an individual can is no. The First Amendment speaks directly to the government’s role in your freedoms; it does not govern how individual people interact.https://www.brownfirmpllc.com/can-an-individual-violate-my-first-amendment-rights/
Does the First Amendment apply to private companies or individuals’ conduct?Generally, no. The First Amendment applies only to governmental action. So it’s only governmental action that we can address using the First Amendment, including applying it to the states through the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.https://www.chandralaw.com/faqs/what-is-a-violation-of-my-first-amendment-rights
Liberalism is defined by sources other than you or me. Someone’s words or positions either conform to that definition or they do not. You want to add exceptions to the definition and make it different for some undefined period of time. Without a source, that’s just your retarded opinion. You have to prove your context is relevant with a source. You can’t because it is not relevant and everything in the universe grasps that but you.I DEFY YOU TO COPE WITH THESE FACTS DO IT CUNT
It makes no sense to say a PREVIOUSLY segregated society changed the definition liberal when it was invented during a far more segregated and racist time period. In order to be logically consistent you have to admit that either King isn’t liberal or the CRT proponents you vilify as illiberal are just as liberal as he is for having the same views.I DEFY YOU TO COPE WITH THESE FACTS DO IT CUNT
You are still a pussy in denial. Redlining is explicitly racist and happening now. That is systematic racism. That’s in addition to the previous science you had a meltdown over after you bothered to pay attention to the proof YOU put forth and realized it all said you were wrong.science > youYou are a tyrant, a bigot, and a pathetic fucking joke.I DEFY YOU TO COPE WITH THESE FACTS DO IT CUNT
Every court case on the subject says I’m right. Your quote from Miami university says I’m right. The 6th circuit decision says I’m right. Even sources you post say I’m right, and you are too fucking stupid to understand what they say.
THE FUCKING FIRST AMENDEMENT SAYS I’M RIGHT IN PLAIN FUCKING ENGLISH.Miami University agreeing with me on what the court decision said: “The 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (the circuit in which Miami University is located) has expressly rejected the notion that speech can be suppressed or punished merely because of the likely reaction of the listeners.That refers to the government taking action because the audience is angry. It does not refer to the audience being disruptive. You are a moron who has no reading comprehension.Big OOOPPPSSS, learn to read.The 6th Circuit agrees with me:“The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit sitting en banc found that Wayne County had violated the right to freedom of expression of a Christian Group, the Bible Believers”“ As the crowd became more hostile, the WCSO informed the Plaintiff-Appellants that, because their conduct was inciting the crowd, they would be escorted out of the festival. The WCSO informed the Plaintiff-Appellants that if they refused to leave, they would likely be cited.”Your own sources agreeing with me:“ It has long been recognized in constitutional law that the “heckler’s veto” — defined as the suppression of speech in order to appease disruptive, hostile, or threatening members of the audience — can be as much a threat to rights of free expression as government censorship.”LOL this is talking about the government suppressing speech exactly like I’ve been saying. IT’S TELLING YOU THE HECKLER’S VETO IS GOVERNMENT ACTION NOT THE AUDIENCE. Jesus you are dumb. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO HAS NO READING COMPREHENTION. Every. Single. Legal. Case. is about government suppression of speech. YOU KNOW THIS.When you do your little Google searches you need to understand the topic enough to know that the Heckler’s Veto most often refers to the government shutting down speech due to concerns over crowd hostility. That is what the decision you posted was about, GOVERNMENT shutting down speech and violating rights. You need to read past headlines and take some reading comprehension courses (Big LOL again at the idea you are a writer with such poor skills LOL) because you are the dumbest motherfucker in any room.
And seriously, who between us needs a life? I have friends and fun hobbies you try and make fun of me for because you are a jealous loser that no one likes. You stalk multiple websites that cater to people and topics you hate just to be an asshole troll. No one with a good life who is mentally stable does that.Your entire fucking life revolves around being a victim! You were a victim at work, your a victim of DEI, progressives are racist against you, it’s all the books you read. It’s YOUR WHOLE FUCKING LIFE. It’s so all consuming that you seek out multiple websites devoted to topics you hate just to troll. No one who feels the need to go to places they dislike to be an asshole is mentally well or having a good life. And no one who throws around racial and homophobic slurs like you do isn’t a bigot.
lol why do they disagree you?
Because they are wrong. Why does every court disagree with you? LOL
You are still a pussy in denial. Redlining is explicitly racist and happening now. That is systematic racism. That’s in addition to the previous science you had a meltdown over after you bothered to pay attention to the proof YOU put forth and realized it all said you were wrong.science > youYou are a tyrant, a bigot, and a pathetic fucking joke.I DEFY YOU TO COPE WITH THESE FACTS DO IT CUNT
It makes no sense to say a PREVIOUSLY segregated society changed the definition liberal when it was invented during a far more segregated and racist time period. In order to be logically consistent you have to admit that either King isn’t liberal or the CRT proponents you vilify as illiberal are just as liberal as he is for having the same views.I DEFY YOU TO COPE WITH THESE FACTS DO IT CUNT
Liberalism is defined by sources other than you or me. Someone’s words or positions either conform to that definition or they do not. You want to add exceptions to the definition and make it different for some undefined period of time. Without a source, that’s just your retarded opinion. You have to prove your context is relevant with a source. You can’t because it is not relevant and everything in the universe grasps that but you.I DEFY YOU TO COPE WITH THESE FACTS DO IT CUNT
Does the First Amendment apply to private companies or individuals’ conduct?Generally, no. The First Amendment applies only to governmental action. So it’s only governmental action that we can address using the First Amendment, including applying it to the states through the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.https://www.chandralaw.com/faqs/what-is-a-violation-of-my-first-amendment-rights
Can An Individual Commit A First Amendment Violation?The short answer to the question of whether an individual can is no. The First Amendment speaks directly to the government’s role in your freedoms; it does not govern how individual people interact.https://www.brownfirmpllc.com/can-an-individual-violate-my-first-amendment-rights/
“When someone exercises their First Amendment right to free speech, the government is not allowed to shut down the speech just because other people don’t like the message that is being conveyed. This is known as the rule against a “heckler’s veto.”https://www.aclumich.org/en/cases/hecklers-veto“A heckler’s veto occurs when the government accepts restrictions on speech because of the anticipated or actual reactions of opponents of the speechAlthough some scholars make reference to a string of heckler’s veto cases, the idea appears across a wide range of cases in First Amendment law as a label critical for any claim, made in defense of the government’s suppression, that speech inciting hostile reactions may be restrained.A heckler’s veto “doctrine” has sometimes been articulated as the principle that the Constitution requires the government to control the crowd in order to defend the communication of ideas, rather than to suppress the speech.”https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/hecklers-veto/The legal issues come when the government shuts down the speech because they are worried about people being upset. It’s not illegal for people to be upset and shout
“[2.] “Heckler’s veto” could also refer to a more direct form of suppression: Again to quote Black’s Law Dictionary, “An interruptive or disruptive act by a private person intending to prevent a speaker from being heard, such as shouting down the speaker, hurling personal insults, and carrying on loud side-conversations.” (See, e.g., Harcz v. Boucher (W.D. Mich. 2021).)Such a heckler’s veto doesn’t itself violate the First Amendment, because it involves solely nongovernmental action (e.g., shouting down a speaker).”https://reason.com/volokh/2022/03/25/hecklers-veto-two-related-meanings/
Every court case on the subject says I’m right. Your quote from Miami university says I’m right. The 6th circuit decision says I’m right. Even sources you post say I’m right, and you are too fucking stupid to understand what they say.THE FUCKING FIRST AMENDEMENT SAYS I’M RIGHT IN PLAIN FUCKING ENGLISH.Miami University agreeing with me on what the court decision said: “The 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (the circuit in which Miami University is located) has expressly rejected the notion that speech can be suppressed or punished merely because of the likely reaction of the listeners.That refers to the government taking action because the audience is angry. It does not refer to the audience being disruptive. You are a moron who has no reading comprehension.Big OOOPPPSSS, learn to read.The 6th Circuit agrees with me:“The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit sitting en banc found that Wayne County had violated the right to freedom of expression of a Christian Group, the Bible Believers”“ As the crowd became more hostile, the WCSO informed the Plaintiff-Appellants that, because their conduct was inciting the crowd, they would be escorted out of the festival. The WCSO informed the Plaintiff-Appellants that if they refused to leave, they would likely be cited.”Your own sources agreeing with me:“ It has long been recognized in constitutional law that the “heckler’s veto” — defined as the suppression of speech in order to appease disruptive, hostile, or threatening members of the audience — can be as much a threat to rights of free expression as government censorship.”LOL this is talking about the government suppressing speech exactly like I’ve been saying. IT’S TELLING YOU THE HECKLER’S VETO IS GOVERNMENT ACTION NOT THE AUDIENCE. Jesus you are dumb. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO HAS NO READING COMPREHENTION. Every. Single. Legal. Case. is about government suppression of speech. YOU KNOW THIS.When you do your little Google searches you need to understand the topic enough to know that the Heckler’s Veto most often refers to the government shutting down speech due to concerns over crowd hostility. That is what the decision you posted was about, GOVERNMENT shutting down speech and violating rights. You need to read past headlines and take some reading comprehension courses (Big LOL again at the idea you are a writer with such poor skills LOL) because you are the dumbest motherfucker in any room.
Better yet, why does the fucking First Amendment say “Congress shall make no law” and doesn’t fucking mention other people at all? How does your claim make any fucking sense in light of the fact that the entire fucking Bill of Rights, indeed, the entire Constitution is intended to limit GOVERNMENT power?
You are a moron.
why. do. they. disagree. with. you?
Because they are wrong. Why does every court disagree with you? LOL
Now you are so retarded you didn’t comprehend that the first time I posted it?
“The First Amendment only prevents government restrictions on speech. It does not prevent restrictions on speech imposed by private individuals or businesses.”https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/censorship“The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference.”“ The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without government interference or regulation. “https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendmentThe Bill of Rights — the other name for the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution – like the Constitution itself and all the other amendments, sets limits only on the relationship between the U.S. government and its people.It does not apply to interactions in other nations, nor interactions between people in the U.S. or companies. If the government is not involved, the First Amendment does not apply.https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/post/what-the-first-amendment-really-says-4-basic-principles-of-free-speech-in-the-u-s/“The First Amendment only protects your speech from government censorship.”https://www.freedomforum.org/what-speech-is-protected-first-amendment/“The First Amendment restrains only the government.https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-i/interpretations/266
Generally, no. The First Amendment applies only to governmental action. So it’s only governmental action that we can address using the First Amendment, including applying it to the states through the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.https://www.chandralaw.com/faqs/what-is-a-violation-of-my-first-amendment-rights
Can An Individual Commit A First Amendment Violation?The short answer to the question of whether an individual can is no. The First Amendment speaks directly to the government’s role in your freedoms; it does not govern how individual people interact.https://www.brownfirmpllc.com/can-an-individual-violate-my-first-amendment-rights/
“When someone exercises their First Amendment right to free speech, the government is not allowed to shut down the speech just because other people don’t like the message that is being conveyed. This is known as the rule against a “heckler’s veto.”https://www.aclumich.org/en/cases/hecklers-veto“A heckler’s veto occurs when the government accepts restrictions on speech because of the anticipated or actual reactions of opponents of the speechAlthough some scholars make reference to a string of heckler’s veto cases, the idea appears across a wide range of cases in First Amendment law as a label critical for any claim, made in defense of the government’s suppression, that speech inciting hostile reactions may be restrained.A heckler’s veto “doctrine” has sometimes been articulated as the principle that the Constitution requires the government to control the crowd in order to defend the communication of ideas, rather than to suppress the speech.”https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/hecklers-veto/The legal issues come when the government shuts down the speech because they are worried about people being upset. It’s not illegal for people to be upset and shout
“[2.] “Heckler’s veto” could also refer to a more direct form of suppression: Again to quote Black’s Law Dictionary, “An interruptive or disruptive act by a private person intending to prevent a speaker from being heard, such as shouting down the speaker, hurling personal insults, and carrying on loud side-conversations.” (See, e.g., Harcz v. Boucher (W.D. Mich. 2021).)Such a heckler’s veto doesn’t itself violate the First Amendment, because it involves solely nongovernmental action (e.g., shouting down a speaker).”https://reason.com/volokh/2022/03/25/hecklers-veto-two-related-meanings/
Every court case on the subject says I’m right. Your quote from Miami university says I’m right. The 6th circuit decision says I’m right. Even sources you post say I’m right, and you are too fucking stupid to understand what they say.THE FUCKING FIRST AMENDEMENT SAYS I’M RIGHT IN PLAIN FUCKING ENGLISH.Miami University agreeing with me on what the court decision said: “The 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (the circuit in which Miami University is located) has expressly rejected the notion that speech can be suppressed or punished merely because of the likely reaction of the listeners.That refers to the government taking action because the audience is angry. It does not refer to the audience being disruptive. You are a moron who has no reading comprehension.Big OOOPPPSSS, learn to read.The 6th Circuit agrees with me:“The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit sitting en banc found that Wayne County had violated the right to freedom of expression of a Christian Group, the Bible Believers”“ As the crowd became more hostile, the WCSO informed the Plaintiff-Appellants that, because their conduct was inciting the crowd, they would be escorted out of the festival. The WCSO informed the Plaintiff-Appellants that if they refused to leave, they would likely be cited.”Your own sources agreeing with me:“ It has long been recognized in constitutional law that the “heckler’s veto” — defined as the suppression of speech in order to appease disruptive, hostile, or threatening members of the audience — can be as much a threat to rights of free expression as government censorship.”LOL this is talking about the government suppressing speech exactly like I’ve been saying. IT’S TELLING YOU THE HECKLER’S VETO IS GOVERNMENT ACTION NOT THE AUDIENCE. Jesus you are dumb. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO HAS NO READING COMPREHENTION. Every. Single. Legal. Case. is about government suppression of speech. YOU KNOW THIS.When you do your little Google searches you need to understand the topic enough to know that the Heckler’s Veto most often refers to the government shutting down speech due to concerns over crowd hostility. That is what the decision you posted was about, GOVERNMENT shutting down speech and violating rights. You need to read past headlines and take some reading comprehension courses (Big LOL again at the idea you are a writer with such poor skills LOL) because you are the dumbest motherfucker in any room.
Better yet, why does the fucking First Amendment say “Congress shall make no law” and doesn’t fucking mention other people at all? How does your claim make any fucking sense in light of the fact that the entire fucking Bill of Rights, indeed, the entire Constitution is intended to limit GOVERNMENT power?
You are a moron.
i dunno, why don’t you ask the dean of berkeley law and the head of the aclu. i suppose they are morons as well, and you, a useless eater psycho stalker internet sleuth know more about the first amendment than they do. did i mention that the head of the aclu is a first amendment scholar?once again, you come down on the side of the mob. golf clap.kill yourself. get a life.
The courts already said and it’s because the First Amazement only applies to government action. Sorry you cherry picked people who are wrong about something because you can’t cope with reality you dislike. Did I mention you are a bitter stalker trolling multiple websites in your empty bitterness? Of course I did.
Once again, I come down on the side of facts and truth, sorry you hate that so fucking much.
You are still a pussy in denial. Redlining is explicitly racist and happening now. That is systematic racism. That’s in addition to the previous science you had a meltdown over after you bothered to pay attention to the proof YOU put forth and realized it all said you were wrong.science > youYou are a tyrant, a bigot, and a pathetic fucking joke.I DEFY YOU TO COPE WITH THESE FACTS DO IT CUNT
It makes no sense to say a PREVIOUSLY segregated society changed the definition liberal when it was invented during a far more segregated and racist time period. In order to be logically consistent you have to admit that either King isn’t liberal or the CRT proponents you vilify as illiberal are just as liberal as he is for having the same views.I DEFY YOU TO COPE WITH THESE FACTS DO IT CUNT
Liberalism is defined by sources other than you or me. Someone’s words or positions either conform to that definition or they do not. You want to add exceptions to the definition and make it different for some undefined period of time. Without a source, that’s just your retarded opinion. You have to prove your context is relevant with a source. You can’t because it is not relevant and everything in the universe grasps that but you.I DEFY YOU TO COPE WITH THESE FACTS DO IT CUNT
“The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference.”“ The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without government interference or regulation. “https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendmentThe Bill of Rights — the other name for the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution – like the Constitution itself and all the other amendments, sets limits only on the relationship between the U.S. government and its people.It does not apply to interactions in other nations, nor interactions between people in the U.S. or companies. If the government is not involved, the First Amendment does not apply.https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/post/what-the-first-amendment-really-says-4-basic-principles-of-free-speech-in-the-u-s/“The First Amendment only protects your speech from government censorship.”https://www.freedomforum.org/what-speech-is-protected-first-amendment/“The First Amendment restrains only the government.https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-i/interpretations/266
“The First Amendment only prevents government restrictions on speech. It does not prevent restrictions on speech imposed by private individuals or businesses.”https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/censorship
Does the First Amendment apply to private companies or individuals’ conduct?Generally, no. The First Amendment applies only to governmental action. So it’s only governmental action that we can address using the First Amendment, including applying it to the states through the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.https://www.chandralaw.com/faqs/what-is-a-violation-of-my-first-amendment-rights
Can An Individual Commit A First Amendment Violation?The short answer to the question of whether an individual can is no. The First Amendment speaks directly to the government’s role in your freedoms; it does not govern how individual people interact.https://www.brownfirmpllc.com/can-an-individual-violate-my-first-amendment-rights/
“When someone exercises their First Amendment right to free speech, the government is not allowed to shut down the speech just because other people don’t like the message that is being conveyed. This is known as the rule against a “heckler’s veto.”https://www.aclumich.org/en/cases/hecklers-veto“A heckler’s veto occurs when the government accepts restrictions on speech because of the anticipated or actual reactions of opponents of the speechAlthough some scholars make reference to a string of heckler’s veto cases, the idea appears across a wide range of cases in First Amendment law as a label critical for any claim, made in defense of the government’s suppression, that speech inciting hostile reactions may be restrained.A heckler’s veto “doctrine” has sometimes been articulated as the principle that the Constitution requires the government to control the crowd in order to defend the communication of ideas, rather than to suppress the speech.”https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/hecklers-veto/The legal issues come when the government shuts down the speech because they are worried about people being upset. It’s not illegal for people to be upset and shout
“[2.] “Heckler’s veto” could also refer to a more direct form of suppression: Again to quote Black’s Law Dictionary, “An interruptive or disruptive act by a private person intending to prevent a speaker from being heard, such as shouting down the speaker, hurling personal insults, and carrying on loud side-conversations.” (See, e.g., Harcz v. Boucher (W.D. Mich. 2021).)Such a heckler’s veto doesn’t itself violate the First Amendment, because it involves solely nongovernmental action (e.g., shouting down a speaker).”https://reason.com/volokh/2022/03/25/hecklers-veto-two-related-meanings/
Every court case on the subject says I’m right. Your quote from Miami university says I’m right. The 6th circuit decision says I’m right. Even sources you post say I’m right, and you are too fucking stupid to understand what they say.THE FUCKING FIRST AMENDEMENT SAYS I’M RIGHT IN PLAIN FUCKING ENGLISH.Miami University agreeing with me on what the court decision said: “The 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (the circuit in which Miami University is located) has expressly rejected the notion that speech can be suppressed or punished merely because of the likely reaction of the listeners.That refers to the government taking action because the audience is angry. It does not refer to the audience being disruptive. You are a moron who has no reading comprehension.Big OOOPPPSSS, learn to read.The 6th Circuit agrees with me:“The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit sitting en banc found that Wayne County had violated the right to freedom of expression of a Christian Group, the Bible Believers”“ As the crowd became more hostile, the WCSO informed the Plaintiff-Appellants that, because their conduct was inciting the crowd, they would be escorted out of the festival. The WCSO informed the Plaintiff-Appellants that if they refused to leave, they would likely be cited.”Your own sources agreeing with me:“ It has long been recognized in constitutional law that the “heckler’s veto” — defined as the suppression of speech in order to appease disruptive, hostile, or threatening members of the audience — can be as much a threat to rights of free expression as government censorship.”LOL this is talking about the government suppressing speech exactly like I’ve been saying. IT’S TELLING YOU THE HECKLER’S VETO IS GOVERNMENT ACTION NOT THE AUDIENCE. Jesus you are dumb. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO HAS NO READING COMPREHENTION. Every. Single. Legal. Case. is about government suppression of speech. YOU KNOW THIS.When you do your little Google searches you need to understand the topic enough to know that the Heckler’s Veto most often refers to the government shutting down speech due to concerns over crowd hostility. That is what the decision you posted was about, GOVERNMENT shutting down speech and violating rights. You need to read past headlines and take some reading comprehension courses (Big LOL again at the idea you are a writer with such poor skills LOL) because you are the dumbest motherfucker in any room.
Pretty sad you can’t deal with the fact that the courts are the real authority here. Which 100% agrees with me. OOOOOOOOOOOOOPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
Hope your stalking on Reddit and your other sites is going better for you but I doubt it.
you’re interpretation of cases…i suppose you are more of an expert than THE DEAN OF BERKELEY LAW AND THE HEAD OF THE ACLU LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLIF THE HECKLER’S VETO IS PROTECTED SPEACH, HOW CAN SCHOO;S CLAMP DOWN ON IT, SUGARTITS???????OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
It’s not my interpretation, it’s there in plain English. You also have ZERO FUCKING CASES that support your position stupid.
THE COURTS ARE THE AUTHORITY NOT THE ACLU OR ANYTHING ELSE YOU POST.
Pretty sad you can’t deal with the fact that the courts are the real authority here. Which 100% agrees with me. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
You are still a pussy in denial. Redlining is explicitly racist and happening now. That is systematic racism. That’s in addition to the previous science you had a meltdown over after you bothered to pay attention to the proof YOU put forth and realized it all said you were wrong.science > youYou are a tyrant, a bigot, and a pathetic fucking joke.I DEFY YOU TO COPE WITH THESE FACTS DO IT CUNT
It makes no sense to say a PREVIOUSLY segregated society changed the definition liberal when it was invented during a far more segregated and racist time period. In order to be logically consistent you have to admit that either King isn’t liberal or the CRT proponents you vilify as illiberal are just as liberal as he is for having the same views.I DEFY YOU TO COPE WITH THESE FACTS DO IT CUNT
Liberalism is defined by sources other than you or me. Someone’s words or positions either conform to that definition or they do not. You want to add exceptions to the definition and make it different for some undefined period of time. Without a source, that’s just your retarded opinion. You have to prove your context is relevant with a source. You can’t because it is not relevant and everything in the universe grasps that but you.I DEFY YOU TO COPE WITH THESE FACTS DO IT CUNT
“The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference.”“ The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without government interference or regulation. “https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendmentThe Bill of Rights — the other name for the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution – like the Constitution itself and all the other amendments, sets limits only on the relationship between the U.S. government and its people.It does not apply to interactions in other nations, nor interactions between people in the U.S. or companies. If the government is not involved, the First Amendment does not apply.https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/post/what-the-first-amendment-really-says-4-basic-principles-of-free-speech-in-the-u-s/“The First Amendment only protects your speech from government censorship.”https://www.freedomforum.org/what-speech-is-protected-first-amendment/“The First Amendment restrains only the government.https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-i/interpretations/266
“IF THE HECKLER’S VETO IS PROTECTED SPEACH”
Please quote where I used the term protected speech.
What I have been saying is that PRIVATE CITIZENS CANNOT VIOLATE YOUR FIRST AMNDEMENT RIGHTS. Making noise during someone else speaking IS NOT ILLEGAL and DOES NOT VIOLATE ANY RIGHTS.
And again, 100% of the law and courts supports this position.
Does the First Amendment apply to private companies or individuals’ conduct?Generally, no. The First Amendment applies only to governmental action. So it’s only governmental action that we can address using the First Amendment, including applying it to the states through the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.https://www.chandralaw.com/faqs/what-is-a-violation-of-my-first-amendment-rights
Can An Individual Commit A First Amendment Violation?The short answer to the question of whether an individual can is no. The First Amendment speaks directly to the government’s role in your freedoms; it does not govern how individual people interact.https://www.brownfirmpllc.com/can-an-individual-violate-my-first-amendment-rights/
“When someone exercises their First Amendment right to free speech, the government is not allowed to shut down the speech just because other people don’t like the message that is being conveyed. This is known as the rule against a “heckler’s veto.”https://www.aclumich.org/en/cases/hecklers-veto“A heckler’s veto occurs when the government accepts restrictions on speech because of the anticipated or actual reactions of opponents of the speechAlthough some scholars make reference to a string of heckler’s veto cases, the idea appears across a wide range of cases in First Amendment law as a label critical for any claim, made in defense of the government’s suppression, that speech inciting hostile reactions may be restrained.A heckler’s veto “doctrine” has sometimes been articulated as the principle that the Constitution requires the government to control the crowd in order to defend the communication of ideas, rather than to suppress the speech.”https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/hecklers-veto/The legal issues come when the government shuts down the speech because they are worried about people being upset. It’s not illegal for people to be upset and shout
“[2.] “Heckler’s veto” could also refer to a more direct form of suppression: Again to quote Black’s Law Dictionary, “An interruptive or disruptive act by a private person intending to prevent a speaker from being heard, such as shouting down the speaker, hurling personal insults, and carrying on loud side-conversations.” (See, e.g., Harcz v. Boucher (W.D. Mich. 2021).)Such a heckler’s veto doesn’t itself violate the First Amendment, because it involves solely nongovernmental action (e.g., shouting down a speaker).”https://reason.com/volokh/2022/03/25/hecklers-veto-two-related-meanings/
Every court case on the subject says I’m right. Your quote from Miami university says I’m right. The 6th circuit decision says I’m right. Even sources you post say I’m right, and you are too fucking stupid to understand what they say.THE FUCKING FIRST AMENDEMENT SAYS I’M RIGHT IN PLAIN FUCKING ENGLISH.Miami University agreeing with me on what the court decision said: “The 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (the circuit in which Miami University is located) has expressly rejected the notion that speech can be suppressed or punished merely because of the likely reaction of the listeners.That refers to the government taking action because the audience is angry. It does not refer to the audience being disruptive. You are a moron who has no reading comprehension.Big OOOPPPSSS, learn to read.The 6th Circuit agrees with me:“The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit sitting en banc found that Wayne County had violated the right to freedom of expression of a Christian Group, the Bible Believers”“ As the crowd became more hostile, the WCSO informed the Plaintiff-Appellants that, because their conduct was inciting the crowd, they would be escorted out of the festival. The WCSO informed the Plaintiff-Appellants that if they refused to leave, they would likely be cited.”Your own sources agreeing with me:“ It has long been recognized in constitutional law that the “heckler’s veto” — defined as the suppression of speech in order to appease disruptive, hostile, or threatening members of the audience — can be as much a threat to rights of free expression as government censorship.”LOL this is talking about the government suppressing speech exactly like I’ve been saying. IT’S TELLING YOU THE HECKLER’S VETO IS GOVERNMENT ACTION NOT THE AUDIENCE. Jesus you are dumb. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO HAS NO READING COMPREHENTION. Every. Single. Legal. Case. is about government suppression of speech. YOU KNOW THIS.When you do your little Google searches you need to understand the topic enough to know that the Heckler’s Veto most often refers to the government shutting down speech due to concerns over crowd hostility. That is what the decision you posted was about, GOVERNMENT shutting down speech and violating rights. You need to read past headlines and take some reading comprehension courses (Big LOL again at the idea you are a writer with such poor skills LOL) because you are the dumbest motherfucker in any room.
Every court case on the subject says I’m right. Your quote from Miami university says I’m right. The 6th circuit decision says I’m right. Even sources you post say I’m right, and you are too fucking stupid to understand what they say.THE FUCKING FIRST AMENDEMENT SAYS I’M RIGHT IN PLAIN FUCKING ENGLISH.Miami University agreeing with me on what the court decision said: “The 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (the circuit in which Miami University is located) has expressly rejected the notion that speech can be suppressed or punished merely because of the likely reaction of the listeners.That refers to the government taking action because the audience is angry. It does not refer to the audience being disruptive. You are a moron who has no reading comprehension.Big OOOPPPSSS, learn to read.The 6th Circuit agrees with me:“The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit sitting en banc found that Wayne County had violated the right to freedom of expression of a Christian Group, the Bible Believers”“ As the crowd became more hostile, the WCSO informed the Plaintiff-Appellants that, because their conduct was inciting the crowd, they would be escorted out of the festival. The WCSO informed the Plaintiff-Appellants that if they refused to leave, they would likely be cited.”Your own sources agreeing with me:“ It has long been recognized in constitutional law that the “heckler’s veto” — defined as the suppression of speech in order to appease disruptive, hostile, or threatening members of the audience — can be as much a threat to rights of free expression as government censorship.”LOL this is talking about the government suppressing speech exactly like I’ve been saying. IT’S TELLING YOU THE HECKLER’S VETO IS GOVERNMENT ACTION NOT THE AUDIENCE. Jesus you are dumb. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO HAS NO READING COMPREHENTION. Every. Single. Legal. Case. is about government suppression of speech. YOU KNOW THIS.When you do your little Google searches you need to understand the topic enough to know that the Heckler’s Veto most often refers to the government shutting down speech due to concerns over crowd hostility. That is what the decision you posted was about, GOVERNMENT shutting down speech and violating rights. You need to read past headlines and take some reading comprehension courses (Big LOL again at the idea you are a writer with such poor skills LOL) because you are the dumbest motherfucker in any room.
And seriously, who between us needs a life? I have friends and fun hobbies you try and make fun of me for because you are a jealous loser that no one likes. You stalk multiple websites that cater to people and topics you hate just to be an asshole troll. No one with a good life who is mentally stable does that.Your entire fucking life revolves around being a victim! You were a victim at work, your a victim of DEI, progressives are racist against you, it’s all the books you read. It’s YOUR WHOLE FUCKING LIFE. It’s so all consuming that you seek out multiple websites devoted to topics you hate just to troll. No one who feels the need to go to places they dislike to be an asshole is mentally well or having a good life. And no one who throws around racial and homophobic slurs like you do isn’t a bigot.
Liberalism is defined by sources other than you or me. Someone’s words or positions either conform to that definition or they do not. You want to add exceptions to the definition and make it different for some undefined period of time. Without a source, that’s just your retarded opinion. You have to prove your context is relevant with a source. You can’t because it is not relevant and everything in the universe grasps that but you.It makes no sense to say a PREVIOUSLY segregated society changed the definition liberal when it was invented during a far more segregated and racist time period. In order to be logically consistent you have to admit that either King isn’t liberal or the CRT proponents you vilify as illiberal are just as liberal as he is for having the same views.You are still a pussy in denial. Redlining is explicitly racist and happening now. That is systematic racism. That’s in addition to the previous science you had a meltdown over after you bothered to pay attention to the proof YOU put forth and realized it all said you were wrong.science > youYou are a tyrant, a bigot, and a pathetic fucking joke.
I don’t believe anybody threatened to kill her. Surely the multiple cameras would have picked that up.