Free speech is a principle (like free trade) in addition to a fundamental right enumerated in the 1A enforceable against the government. People are making policy arguments when they discuss it in the context of private entities deplatforming advocating for private implementation of the principle into business practices.

The thing is that they’ve got teeth. E.g. redistricting, along with the plurality of powers granted to the countless offices across the nation that they hold.

Q: Should (insert political party here) disenfranchise voters for the benefit of (insert political party here)'s political ends?

A: No.

If you have no principles you have nothing.

YSK call your house rep. They’re more likely to answer. Also call your state reps first. Most issues are handled on a state level, not federal, and state house reps tend to be the most accessible.

Because most haven’t I will actually answer the call of the question. Voting is perhaps the most important way one can voice their opinion. And carries more effect than most words the average man or woman can utter.

The largest argument against these types of stances is that it will create a spoiler effect. This usually operates on the premise that a vote to a candidate is owed and not earned and or that it is impossible to achieve a different outcome besides one of the two establishment candidates. This second premise being the results of people who decry voting 3rd party as useless based on a restriction with no physical or legal basis imposed on our society by our society. There’s nothing stopping people from electing anyone else on the ballot.

If you can acknowledge that we as a society have this power the idea of accepting a lesser evil is weakened. If you vote for a lesser evil you perpetuate the broken system you hate. In your example Gaza, if someone feels that the issue is so important it merits a principled stance how can they not take the stance?

It’s a matter of pragmatism vs principles.

Shit take that the judges must be bribed because politicians have enacted unpopular laws. The problem is the legislature here.

The friend of certainty is time. One day perhaps then we won’t even call ourselves Americans. I doubt the 1860s will happen again anytime soon. Maybe something closer in scale to Blair Mountain.

Look to history. We’ve had two. Look at the words explaining the necessity of independence in the declaration of independence. Those were not hollow words but detailed a long series of abuses. Then look to the causes of the Civil War. A perfidious institution anathematic to the very core ideal of the nation, that all men are created equal.

Our times doubtless have our problems but the do not meet nearly the standard set in the past.

“the US” doesn’t narrow it down much. I kinda assumed that much. What really matters if which one of the 50+ legal systems in the US he is subject to. And which courthouse he is going to.

This is going to 100% be a state law matter, unless he lives somewhere like D.C. or Puerto Rico which aren’t states but fall under federal jurisdiction.

We have no clue where you are so we can’t give any good advice. For all we know you live in Elbonia and driving without a license gets you the guillotine.

But

Show up ~30 minutes early, there will likely be metal detectors and a line at them. If you are in line be ready when you get up front, if you need to empty your pockets do that before you are at the detector. This makes it faster for everyone.

Showing up early will also give you time to find your courtroom in the building. It also will let you watch the court for a few minutes before your time to shine.

Turn your phone off. Court house rules might require you leave it outside.

Dress appropriately, a polo should be fine. Any collared shirt tucked in with pants and closed toed shoes will show you put some effort into dressing yourself. No hats unless you’ve got to for your religion.

It’s the judge’s courtroom don’t interrupt them. Don’t lie. And being on your best behavior starts the moment you step onto the lot not when you enter the room, be polite to court staff as well.

Read the ticket front and back for specific instructions. Check the court website to see if there’s any announcements that you should be aware of (like local rules).

Don’t listen to other people’s advice on how you should plead. We don’t know the facts of your case. Most people here aren’t lawyers. Nothing here is legal advice.

The chances of that happening to the average person are close to zero.

That’s the whole point. People don’t watch the news to hear “dog bites man” they watch it to hear “man bites dog”.

No one wants to watch a 2-3 hr long movie about someone’s regular Tuesday at the office they want to watch something that doesn’t happen everyday like an adventure, the perfect couple meeting, or the world ending.

Kerosene and whale oil have been around for a bit longer than cars.

If you are having problems with cotton maybe look at a material better at wicking. I wear wool or viscose. Cotton is anti-wicking, making you hot and sticky at first then cold and clammy as it cools down.

When someone says someone is legally trespassing read it as “legally [speaking they are] trespassing”. At least in most cases.

Pedantic tangent:

You could lawfully trespass on the land of another (with permission). There’s 4 elements to the tort of trespass to land. 1) You act volitionally. 2) You intend to occupy that space, are substantially certain that will happen as a result of your actions, or you intend another intentional tort granting transfered intent. 3) But for your act their property wouldn’t have been invaded. 4) Their property has been invaded.

In civil law a trespass to land doesn’t consider whether you have permission or not to determine if you trespassed. They would determine that you did infact trespass but you have the defense of having done so with the privilege to do so granted by the owner. Meaning you did trespass but did so only in a manner appropriate under law.

I remember my college had a suicide awareness day where among other things they told people to tell their suicidal friends to call the hotline if they felt suicidal.

Now imagine you are that person and you reach out to a friend for help only to have them tell you to call someone else in a canned speech you were told to tell others.

Last I checked there was an instance rule preventing the posting of pictures of cheese without a trigger warning.

No American court is going to hold an American company who fired (presumably) an American who (presumably) works on American soil liable under that. You’d be better off looking for local statutes that offer protections.

The overturn of Chevron is only significant in that courts, particularly lower appeals courts, won’t be forced to accept agency interpretations on law. They still can if that’s the better of the two. It’s a big development in APA law but it is just on how laws get reviewed when contested.

Having not looked into the drug scheduling system much I can’t say for certain on that particular topic. But I wouldn’t be shocked if something like an interpretation on paraphernalia by the DEA got shot down.

If you want some good from the Loper Bright case keep in mind that it limits new presidents from coming in and appointing biased ‘experts’ to agencies to create new interpretation of law to aid their causes. This is a double edged sword. But I think with time we willl benefit from the end of the practice and we will settle in to a more stable set of administrative rulings that doesn’t shift every 4 years.

They considered themselves to be Englishmen, and have the rights of one, even after the Battle of Bunker Hill for some time. Also you’re thinking of Sam Adams, who was a brewer. But Franklin is pretty much dead on the money. Didn’t even wear a wig just showed up all slovenly and slayed.

The blade was inside a sheath and could be released from the sheath with the press of a button.

And approached could simply be he was intent on walking past them on the sidewalk.

Brandish is a stretch nothing in that article noted an intent to intimidate others, it is simple possession of a tchotchke. Unless you count the author’s flavor text.