Comment on Clarence Thomas Wants to Go After Freedom of the Press
wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 11 months agoYes there is nothing odd serving a federal sentence in a federal prison. That’s common sense. Where else would they serve their time? A misdemeanor is a year of less. So the sentence would tell you it’s a misdemeanor. Also the paperwork would show its misdemeanor. The crime itself would tell you it’s a misdemeanor.
Where did Thomas mention a slapp suit ?
And no a slapp suit is the the government silencing anymore. Good lord learn how the system works. It’s a civil action between two parties. The government is just enforcing the laws.
PizzaMan@lemmy.world 11 months ago
The active malice requirement is a protection against slapp suits and similar. He doesn’t need eo explicitly mention them for them to be a part of this.
It’s run by the government and enforced by the government. If you fail to show up, fail to get the money together to fight it, etc, you will be severely punished (enforced by the government).
You can’t act like the government isn’t involved in lawsuits.
wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 11 months ago
No, he needs to mention it to be relevant. You can’t put words in his mouth.
You don’t understand the basics of law and are rambling.
It is not the government dampening free speech and has nothing to do with the conversation or what Thomas said.
If you don’t understand something, ask questions instead of looking like an idiot.
The comment was about the journalist making slanderous comments. They should be punished for that. It isn’t a free speech issue. Free speech doesn’t allow you to damage the reputation of others and the government isn’t the one brining suit.
PizzaMan@lemmy.world 11 months ago
That’s not how language works. If I’m talking about water infrastructure, damns are relevant even if I never said the word.
So you’re basically just boiling it down to “Nu uh”. Wow you sure have me convinced.
Perhaps in the future you could at least attempt to address the argument.
wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 11 months ago
No, I am boiling down to facts. I know you don’t like facts, but the fact is has nothing to do with free speech.
You don’t have an argument to address. You are making up some weird, illogical fallacy that no sane person would attempt to address.
It has nothing to do with the topic. It has nothing to do with Thomas and only shows you don’t understand free speech.