Acosta's free speech is in no way under threat. He can say whatever he wants from CNN offices, or his mom's basement. He just doesn't get to show up at the white house and throw a temper tantrum. Neither do approximately 100% of the other 340 millions americans.
Free speech does not mean free access.
And yeah, my "fuck you" stands. You're being partisan as fuck. You have no legal grounds for this stance. Neither does anyone else. You just hate that Trump is (quite justly, imo) telling someone to fuck off.
He?s being kicked out for being a disruptive asshole. Lots of reporters ask ?tough questions?. Some even ask ?tough questions? that aren?t, they are really biased position statements (usually liberal). That?s bad journalism, but it won?t get you kicked out.
What most don?t do is shout constantly over others, refuse to yield the floor, interrupt, and generally act more like a protestor in a suit than a reporter.
Right of free speech is not a right of free access. Accosta can say whatever he likes from the CNN offices, where people can choose to listen to him, or not, and it?s own mic he doesn?t have to give back.
But personally, I want to say ?Fuck you, Mike?. I?ve follwed this site for ....decades? As long as you were around. I had you in my feed when RSS?s were still a thing. And you pretended to be ?non partisan? then, but you weren?t, and now your politics have gotten NUTS. This isn?t about free speech, or law involving tech, this is just ?Orange Man Bad? shit.
Firstly, stop saying just ?immigrant? when the subject is ILLEGAL immigrants. You?re conflating in purpose.
Second, if they?re here illegaly, GTFO. I don?t mind prioritizing the more dangerous folks, but they all can and should be deported.
There?s nothing wrong with a system that just says ?deport=true?.
You know damn well what ?SJW? means, and how it is used as a pejorative.
It means someone who uses an (often flexible) notion of ?justice? as a political weapon. An example would be calling those who want a strongly enfoced border ?racist? just because a majority of people arrested due to that are not white.
And ?illegal? is short for ?illegal allien?. Those who are illegally present from foreign countries.
It is true that we have far too many laws. However, an open border is not at all practical, particularly with the large income distribution our governments partake in.
Some laws are good and I want enforced. Just as I want every murder caught (which is not at all to suggest hey are equivalent crimes) I want every illegal deported.
It is absolutely possible for a person's presence here to be illegal. In fact, in this case, it is. No, the term is not "problematic".
Bonus points for trying to tie your SJW argument into overpopulation based euthanasia, I guess? Jesus Christ, you're a parody the ridiculous logic the Left uses.
If you want to change the law, by all means lobby to have that happen, in the mean time it needs to be fairly and uniformly applied.
He's an illegal alien. His presence is illegal. He needs to be deported. Fini. The rest of this story doesn't even matter. He can express his opinions on what assholes our government is from El Salvador.
Who gives a shit. If he?s illegal, deport him. (This article makes it sound like he?s a refugee. That?s a legal status, he apparently is not one or they would not be deporting him).
If I were an illegal I would probably try to avoid all sorts of actions that would bring attention to me, including plenty of legal actions.
I also don?t care much if this is or isn?t vindictive. If he?s here illegally, he should be deported. Period. That?s the desired result.
Except if the government were trying to "regulate" the media as utility.....that would actually be a huge threat to free speech. Which is, y'know, what happened.
So really, that was just a dumb thing to say.
Maybe don't let the government take over the internet, mmm'kay?
WTF are you using the term "turned out to be" a "reenactment". That's what the cops are alleging, there's no particular reason to believe. It could be that, yes, but it also could not be, which is why all those cases are being thrown out.
The correct term is "cops claimed to be a reenactment".
Don't try to equate this in any way with Clinton's crimes. You just make yourself look stupid, and you're a tech and law site, dammit.
Manning is not Snowden. Snowden exposed real law breaking and was actually a whistleblower. All Manning did was expose a bunch sensitive military communications and diplomatic wires, she committed treason and furthered the public good not at all.
She should still be prison. The outrage was not because of the CIA, it was because she's awful.
Pardon Snowden, though.
It's a lot more accurate to say that Sessions is doing this, and I wish your headline reflected that.
I thought you guys were somewhat libertarian leaning. Please tell me you see SOME consequences to this sort of thing? The fact that we're talking about monitoring those around the convict, also, through voice & facial recognition? No? Not like there's an opt out for that. Or that you could conceivably have an entire society "imprisoned" and under government control, unlike a normal prison system, there's no limit?
Any form of conservative speech....not crazy stuff, just simply not left wing had been completely shut down, and basically through violence.
You're a liberal, I understand you may not instinctively get the problem, but if you want to write about it and not get laughed at, please understand that relatively uncontroversial speech is getting shut down through violence.
Seriously, stupidest fucking article I have ever read here.