This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Dear Motte, please help me place my vote.
I really want to support the Democratic Party. Biden's FTC, EPA, and NLRB all seem to be working in economic directions which will make my life and the life of my children better: open markets, cleaner air, better working conditions. I can't help but notice that Trump's previous court picks tend to work against my goals of regulating business, increasing vacation time for my family, and limiting the EPA's attempts to regulate fossil fuels.
But voting blue has some tradeoffs. Some of these I'm aware of, but they are less relevant to me: Immigration is high and crime is up, but immigration and crime are intensely local, and my locality is pretty safe, with lots of rich donors and its own competent police force.
I'm going to have a family soon. I would like my child to be able to enjoy a carefree childhood, without needles in the parks and bullies in the schools, and without the chance that they are brainwashed into values that won't give me grandchildren.
But then things happen which force me to reevaluate and acknowledge that I cannot support the Democratic party. For example, this exchange during the VP debate (Transcript from Matt Taibbi):
Matt makes the argument that Walz got the crowded theater analogy backwards, but even more than that what rings alarm bells in my head is the phrase "Or hate speech."
What do you mean hate speech isn't protected by the first amendment? How do you think the market of ideas is going to work?
This exchange was the last straw for me, and convinced me that, however much it may harm my short-term personal interests, I cannot cast a ballot for Walz and the group of people who think like him. No matter how shitty life might get without the EPA or FTC working in my best interest, it will get much more shitty, much faster if donors to the Democratic party (NPR listeners?) get to define contrarian thought as "hate speech".
So here are my options for presidential tickets:
Any ideas who has the most "Grey Tribe" values and best policies?
Important issues to me, in order of importance as far as I can tell:
Edit: formatting of candidate list
Are you in Wisconsin? That's the only one that had that list match exactly. It looks like their only write-in candidate available is Peter Sonski, of the American Solidarity Party.
I imagine De la Cruz is too extreme with you, wanting to abolish capitalism. I couldn't find identifiable policies for Terry.
If by "quantitative approaches to existential threats" you mean, not shutting down everything over climate change, while still caring about it, I imagine that rules out West and Stein. They're also just generally more extreme.
Of the remaining:
Oliver likes to handle things by just having the government leave the matter. He wants to let everyone in on immigration. He wants to help the climate only by stopping government actions that make things worse.
Trump's probably more anti-trade than you'd like, and cares less about the environment than you'd prefer (though he agrees that clean air and water are important).
RFK's now only listing things that he can agree with Trump on, which makes him hard for me to evaluate.
Sonski's not really a YIMBY, and wants to keep allowing in refugees.
I'd say, if you want to choose someone with a chance, definitely go Trump. Otherwise, your closest match is probably one of those last four, but I'm not sure which.
Yup. I figured the "Wisconsin Green" party made it obvious, but most responders didn't read that carefully.
Thank you so much for the good-faith tips!
I've been (slowly) going through the third-party candidates in Detail, scoring them by (freedom+transparency)*competence*weighted issues. Terry was indeed hard to find info on. Stein is out, because she's provided a laundry-list of "human rights" which she cannot possibly deliver on (Free Tuition, Free Housing, Free Medical, and no nuclear, but Declare a Climate Emergency....). And .. that's about as far as I've gotten.
I'm glad I researched her, though, because I came across an interesting story of how the Democratic secretary of State of Nevada colluded with the Democratic Party of Nevada to keep Stein off the ballot. It serves as an interesting counterpoint to the argument that Democrats only play dirty in response to Republicans playing dirty, since the Green party was victimized by Dems' dirty antics. (tl;ds: Secretary of State tells the Green Party to use an updated petition to put a candidate on the ballot, which petition doesn't collect information on signatories' eligibility to vote. The Democratic Party of Nevada sues to challenge the Green Party candidate's inclusion on the ballot under the argument that the law requires the petition to collect eligibility to vote information to be valid, and now Stein is not on the ballot in Nevada.)
Who did you end up going with?
I have a policy of not telling anyone who I actually voted for. That said, here are my notes for the rest of the third-party candidates:
Cladia De la Cruz (Party for Socialism and Liberation)
Cornel West (Justice For All party)
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (We The People party)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Politicians are much better at implementing fiscal and regulatory policy than making sweeping shifts in civil rights. They’re also more interested in doing the former. Niche Internet free-speech forums spend much more time thinking about freedom of expression than the average politician or the average American.
On the off chance that Walz becomes VP, then President, then is handed a draconian 1A bill by Congress, I suppose he’d be likely to sign it. I don’t consider this a likely outcome.
In the interest of the next few items on your list, I suggest voting for the candidate who won’t appoint her family members to diplomatic posts, hire his lawyers and golf buddies to consult, and otherwise funnel money to his own enterprises.
More options
Context Copy link
Just vote for Trump and move on with your day.
More options
Context Copy link
When everything is a priority, nothing is a priority. Pick your 2 priorities. 1 short term, 1 long term. Dump everything else. Then pick which matter more. Short or long term. and roll with it.
How I'm thinking about it:
With the supreme court stable & a post-woke zeitgeist, Dems can't move the needle on strongly enshrined freedoms. This will be a 1 term president, with a half-term before mid-terms to get anything done. It won't affect long term change. YIMBYism has finally gained momentum and can have quick impact. So short term it is.
For national elections, I wouldn't waste my breath on a 3rd candidate. Pick a tent. Everything else is theater.
I'd reluctantly vote for Dems in nationals. And then vote for the YIMBYiest (pro housing, clean streets) local candidate, irrespective of their leaning. Couple of years ago, Ann Davidson in Seattle was the right candidate despite being Republican. But in SF, don't think there are any good right leaning candidates.
I really don't see how this is the case. Long-term democratic cities are notorious for having draconian planning regulations. When I lived in SF, I couldn't even add an internal door inside my own house as a noise barrier without applying for a variance. And the criminal worship on team blue is just out of control. The number one issue in the way of restoring cities is that people, and especially people with children, just don't feel safe.
The cities need a committed reformist movement, probably within the Democratic party, since their policies have shut out people with children who vote Republican from living in urban areas. But on the national level, it's hard to see how the better option is the party of BLM, leading with a candidate who endorsed the riots.
I'm sure there are a ton of exceptions and caveats, but this is the rough shape of things in my mind: If you're concerned about building more, then the two major parties may have opposite effects depending on whether you're talking about the local level or higher levels. Locally, conservatives who favor less regulation and more individual freedom will tend to lead toward allowing more building. But we also have a problem of most municipal governments already being overly restrictive with their zoning codes and regulations, and progressives seem to be more willing to use power at the state and national levels to incentivize/force municipal governments to allow more building.
Progressive implementation of the policies will not be as advertised however. You wont get new housing in the city or near the urban core, instead you will get subsidized housing foisted onto suburbs that are being made to heel ala the NJ Mt. Laurel doctrine (see Southern Burlington County N.A.A.C.P. v. Mount Laurel Township ). This pattern has been repeatedly seen in progressive states. The goal of such policies is to make the city itself expensive and rich and less violent while foisting the worst of it on people who explicitly moved away from the violence, thus ending those communities repeat as people flee.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm not sure how you draw this conclusion when the modal Democrat controlled state is California, a state renown for the impossibility of building anything, and rent control schemes sabotaging housing supply over decades. Compared with nominally Republican controlled Texas and Florida where building is cheap, easy and plentiful.
The incentives faced by legislators at the municipal vs state vs national levels are different, and the incentives faced by blue politicians in a blue state are different than those faced by blue politicians in a red state.
My ideal political alignment is purple-purple-purple (municipal, national, state), but since it's impossible to live in a red city in a blue state I'm happy enough living in a blue city in a red state in a purple nation. I could probably tolerate living in a blue city in a blue state in a red nation. I would soon grow to despise living in a blue city in a red state in a red nation.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm an enemy of American state, as in, I see American national interests as directly harming my interests( I live in Europe, the wars, the economic terrorism, the NGO operations, the endless lies ).
Even I wouldn't recommend people vote for Kamala because again, Americans are people too, America used to be great before FDR ruined it, and seeing this happening to a once great nation is just horrible. It's a disgrace, and the Uniparty simply has to go. Also Trump might re-orient America from supporting infinity migration, which could help Europe too. I don't believe for a second he'd leave NATO though.
Also, if you care about those things you listed, you should never vote for Kamala. She doesn't have any good people behind her - her inner circle are corrupt idiots. She'd make an even bigger mess of things than Biden's admin, and it'd probably ensure either a revolt (if she packed the court) or total GOP dominance later on.
Even some democrat senators are now running pro-Trump ads. The rumor is party leadership has made peace with him winning, and they're going to just to try to ruin his administration with any and all means after november.
The off-the-reservation British Shakespeare scholar turned politologist the half-Welsh, half-Persian Neema Parvini (radicalised by Blair) has been saying since late july that Kamala is a 'jobber', which is a wrestling term. She's not a candidate the party expects to win.. They couldn't find a good candidate, so they let Trump win, ruin his presidency as much as possible and then run Newsom or someone else in '28.
More options
Context Copy link
The chance of anything meaningful happening relating to speech laws under a Democratic administration is zero. Even if they did control both chambers, which they won't, any national legislation on 'freedom of expression' would never get out of the starting blocks among swathes of Democratic congressmen and women. Walz made a silly comment, but it seems very paranoid to think this would ever actually amount to something. Certainly, if that is beyond the pale for you then you should be much more violently opposed to Trump, given his comments on freedom of expression have gone way beyond that. They're all well known now, but some of the worst below;
Now, Trump obviously can't/couldn't follow up on any of these threats for various practical or legal reasons, but nevertheless if it's a contest of 'who has more contempt for freedom of expression' Trump wins hands down.
I strongly agree with this. OP lists freedom of expression as his top issue but the whole top post reads as an isolated demand for rigor from the left. You can't always buy the hype. Elon Musk makes a ton of noise about free speech too - but his actual track record running X is decidedly mixed on the issue of free expression. I'm a big fan of the 1st Amendment, it's important to me too. Which exactly why I've done enough background reading to know neither major American political party is particularly good on the issue of free speech!
https://x.com/bennyjohnson/status/1850700851104358438
More options
Context Copy link
This is strongly refuted by the facebook and twitter files wherein it is laid clear that intense backroom pressure was applied to suppress speech. Passing laws is hardly how the government works anymore. It is mostly about controlling the agencies, which it seems Trump is unable to do, particularly on this particular issue. The DOJ prosecuted him and his supporters more than Democrats when he was ostensibly in charge of it!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There's an idea in cultural criticism called Advanced Genius theory. The basic gist of it is that, when and iconic artist (usually a musician) puts out a work that everybody—critics, the public, etc.—agrees is terrible, it's probably not terrible in any metaphysical sense, it's just that the artist's genius has advanced beyond our ability to understand it. This is a fringe idea to be sure, as I am unaware of any critics who actually subscribe to it. Rolling Stone's Rob Sheffield has said that it's merely an excuse for people to "listen to shitty music by artists they consider to be non-shitty".
1959 was arguably the most important year in American musical history. Jazz, up to this point, was largely based on concepts of functional harmony that were prevalent in American musical theater. Musicians had been gradually increasing the harmonic complexity throughout the music's history, a trend that accelerated following WWII. John Coltrane's album Giant Steps upped the ante considerably by creating an entirely new theoretical framework of constant structure major 7 harmony cycled across major thirds in consecutive multi-tonic systems, aka The Coltrane Changes. While this sounds perfectly normal to the casual listener, any musician trying to improvise is forced to deal with moves that are otherwise unheard of in any kind of music all while keeping up with the breakneck pace of the chord changes.
At the other end of the spectrum, Miles Davis, never among the best technical players, ditched conventional chord changes entirely in favor of modes, which hadn't been a common feature of Western music since the Renaissance era. Instead of a chord progression, there was merely a tonal center and accompanying scale. Rather than keep up with the acrobatics of a complicated chord progression, soloists could put more thought into what they were doing and stretch out. Kind of Blue has since become the most revered album in jazz history. And then there was Ornette Coleman, for whom modalism wasn't enough. He wanted to ditch harmony entirely in favor of melody, and put out The Shape of Jazz to Come, its title a not-so-subtle harbinger of the future.
John Coltrane recorded Giant Steps as a leader (obviously), and was a sideman on Kind of Blue. He didn't play in Coleman's band but he was in awe of him. To Coltrane, Coleman's ideas represented a sort of platonic ideal. In 1960 he recorded a series of Coleman compositions with members of Coleman's band, and while the results are okay, it's clear that Coltrane had to chart his own path. The 1959 albums would be the cornerstones of modern jazz. Armed with this knowledge, Coltrane would spend the first half of the 1960s plowing further and further into uncharted territory. By the time he toured Japan in the summer of 1966, his band was the only thing keeping him tethered to earth. In 1960 he recorded a version of "My Favorite Things" that recast the song as a 12-minute modal vamp that didn't bother to get to the bridge until the very end. By 1966 he was extending it up to an hour, and it bore so little resemblance to the Julie Andrews version that one wonders why Rodgers and Hammerstein were even getting credit. Everything he recorded after this is almost beyond description, and he would be dead within a year of returning from Japan. He was forty.
A few years back, there was a Netflix documentary about the life and career of John Coltrane. Cornel West appears in the film as an interview subject, and when they get to Coltrane's final recordings he admits that they aren't something he can listen to unless he's in a very specific state of mind. One gets the impression that Dr. West doesn't actually like these recordings, and that he's effectively never in the appropriate state of mind, if such a state even exists. But he doesn't go as far as saying that the recordings are actually bad. I've heard these myself, and while I share West's inability to truly get into them, it's clear that they aren't bad. Coltrane, by this point, is operating on a plane of consciousness so foreign to us mere mortals that we're simply incabable of comprehending it.
John Coltrane is the only musician that approaches the level of Advanced Genius. Advancement theorists like to bring up people like Lou Reed and Neil Young as the quintessential examples of such, but, let's face it, all these guys ever really did was make rock and roll records. Coltrane took the idea of harmony to its logical conclusion and spent the rest of his career destroying it. With each step he took, he blew the minds of those who listened to him, and eventually reached the point where no one could keep up with him. Miles Davis may be personally responsible for multiple revolutions within jazz, but those were genre-transforming. Coltrane is sui generis. Even acolytes like Pharoah Sanders and enthusiasts like Kemasi Washington can only exist as pale imitations.
I doubt Cornel West has ever heard of Advanced Genius Theory or is familiar with its principles, yet he seems to understand the concept more deeply than those who invented it. If you're looking for someone to vote for and can't decide based on their actual political positions, that's as good a reason as any.
So there is hope for Freddie Got Fingered? Some thing are bad and irredeemable. Or relegated to cult status. Has there been a piece that was poorly received and then gained widespread popularity?
maybe Jazz history, but the genre is still so tiny. It's amazing how A Kind of Blue, the best-selling jazz album ever, sold only 5 million copies in over 60 years despite all its acclaim. Probably the invention of rock and roll was a bigger deal, but harder to pinpoint a year.
No. The first thing you should be aware of is that the number of subscribers to Advanced Genius Theory is very small. The second thing is that it puts faith in the artist based on a prior evaluation of genius. For example, with a guy like Coltrane, he's already established himself as a genius, so we should give him the benefit of the doubt. Tom Green was never considered a genius by anyone. Finally, one of the requirements for a work to be Advanced is that it has to be presented without irony. Tom Green accepted the Razzie for Freddy Got fingered in person, which is not behavior that suggests he thought of the film as a serious piece of art that was deserving of respect.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
As someone who had voted libertarian or green in every election until now, just so what I've done, bite the bullet, and vote Trump.
If you're in a swing state, then it might actually matter. If you're in a deep-blue state, vote down ticket Republican to avoid or prevent one-party control. It would only be in a deep-red state that I would consider voting third party or down ballot Democrat.
More options
Context Copy link
The issue imho has been misallocation of public resources. For example, why is so much healthcare spending on people who are at the end-of-life for example who have no hope of living much longer. Or so much education spending to bring laggards up to speed, who should go into the trades or drop out of school. Or too much credentialism. Many of these proposals seem like an expansion of the government or vague that will necessitate higher taxes or more deficit spending. The minimum wage is an example of 'labor rights', yet creates a barrier to work.
While your typical electrician or HVAC tech didn’t do well in school, this was because he either thought school was dumb or wasn’t willing to listen to his teachers. Guys that were genuinely not smart enough to handle the material usually aren’t smart enough to work in a regulated trade.
this is why the min. wage is harmful. there is a market for dumb workers; it's just not high enough to justify paying them
You would expect this to be true, but empirically it doesn't seem to be. The going rate for a sober, trustworthy worker with a 90 IQ and a good attitude is something like 2/3 of the going rate for a 100 IQ worker - in other words it is above any likely minimum wage. And the going rate for a 90 IQ worker who is drunken, lippy, violent or dishonest is comfortably negative.
The Problem of low wage work (and in today's society it is a capital-P problem - a lot of what tradcons hate about our society is downstream of it) is really a two-parter:
If you solved those problems then the going rate for 90 IQ male workers would be well above the sort of minimum wage levels that are within the Overton window, so the minimum wage would be largely irrelevant.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Trump seems like he sort-of-fits your top issues; but if you live in a non-swing state, try voting libertarian.
More options
Context Copy link
Congratulations!
Your vote doesn't matter. Not at the national level, not at the state level. It might, just might, matter a little for your local elections, especially the very boring ones that most people in your area skip because they are boring and most people know nothing about them.
But you know where you really can make a political impact, is showing up to the open sessions of your local school-board, your town-hall meetings, your county supervisors meetings, having read up on the agenda in advance and then taking that opportunity to give your 3-minute speech.
You won't sway votes on every issue, but I have been amazed at how many times an agenda item got tabled or substantially changed based solely on a dozen people showing up and giving their well-reasoned 3-minute opposition.
And that's without being plugged into a more serious local organization that regularly interacts with your local politicians, that's just you yourself. If you do get plugged into such a local organization, you can have even more impact.
(And, of course, get to know your child's teachers and school principal. And be prepared to put them into a competing charter school / private school / homeschool, lots of options out there.)
Thank you. Haven't gotten involved in local politics yet. Will have to start attending meetings.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Have you considered not worrying too much about it and just going with your gut?
The chance that your vote is the deciding one is effectively zero. You shouldn't think too much about it.
This is what I think about voting. Funny enough, giving the argument "your vote doesn't matter" is probably more impactful than actually voting, but still probably not impactful enough to worry about for most people since they don't really have an audience.
The counterarguments are always something like, "but if everyone thought the same as you, then your vote would matter since way less people are voting!", which is true, but also never going to be the case.
People also always bring up cases of "look at this super close election, the difference was only a few hundred votes!", but, even in that case your odds of changing the election are still only 1 in a few hundred. And that is assuming you know how close the election is going to be before hand. So, yes politics are very important, but your chance of changing anything about it with your vote is next to none, so there is no real point to voting. Paradoxically, this makes telling people to vote, while not voting yourself, more important to do.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The whole thing should ring in your head as an incredible example of what a blubbering idiot Walz is. He confidently, bloviatingly says, "You can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater. That’s the test. That’s the Supreme Court test!" and this is just completely wrong in every single way. It's not the controlling precedent. It's considered an example of terrible law. Even at the time that Holmes penned the line, this was a paraphrased dictum from his opinion, not a test. He didn't just misunderstand the context or modern meaning, he got literally everything around it wrong in order to line it up with his desire to control speech. We have a man running for Vice President that doesn't understand the basics of the First Amendment and confidently cites a Supreme Court opinion that isn't a controlling precedent and that he doesn't understand. The whole thing is a damning indictment of Walz and the party that nominated him.
To be pedantic, it is illegal to incite people to imminent lawless action. Walz is technically correct that you could be prosecuted for willfully creating a false emergency.
The part that's wrong is that quote was used in conjunction with suppressing protests to
the Vietnam War,edit: WW1, which the comparison to "Shouting "Fire!" " is nonexistent and was terrible law. And Walz is still wrong for the same reason. I'm not disagreeing with you so much as specifying which part of that was terrible law.protest to WWI, was it not?
My apologies. You are correct.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes for crime, but Kambala can potentially start dumping millions of illegals in your town on a moment's notice. Nowhere is safe.
Trump has been in favor of clean air and water, just against the enemy's decarbonization agenda.
I'm not sure joe's nlrb has done much except union stuff, which is a shrinking segment of the workforce. At the very least, he hasn't given anyone extra vacation days.
You can’t stop, can you?
Two week ban. Come back after the election.
Only warnings for those two posts (and then padded with reassurances like "which usually we'd probably let go"), and now a mere two weeks? Was there an executive decision to let the forum turn into an /r/CWR-lite space?
Nope.
You know, I was kind of expecting to be criticized for harshness.
Right, well, moderation compounds. If in two weeks you were to ban somebody else for making posts like this, maybe the user you just banned would be there to complain that you are being too harsh.
If providing a home for it was not the goal, the sneering and blatant culture-warring from the forum's right edge should have been contained much more relentlessly from the outset. Now that they have numbers and precedent on their side, it's natural that belated attempts to moderate this behaviour away will result in defiant "community sentiment". I'm sorry that I'm joining in on making your life hard, but I see no better way to level the incentive landscape.
Eh, you should see some of the stuff we did contain. Your brand of polite criticism is far from the most difficult thing about this place.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What always gets me about that stupid "fire in a crowded theater" cliché is that it's:
It's a terrible argument from bad precedent used to justify tyranny, and somehow it all seems to be okay to hide behind because it's a memorable maxim by a nominally progressive jurist who later actually changed his mind and supported broader 1a jurisprudence.
I hate it, when someone repeats it I know they either have no historical context for it or loathe Free Speech as a concept and are just trying to make that palatable.
More options
Context Copy link
Narrator: It is not, in fact, the Supreme Court test. That would be "imminent lawless action".
its funny they make reference to a case that involved a socialist being jailed for his anti-war protest (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debs_v._United_States) that was clearly decided incorrectly based on the current interpretation of first amendment protections. of course this also shows that the current interpretation is something that needs to be strongly guarded against because the courts can quite easily take away the right to free speech.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link