Who determines "election interference" is key here...
Sorry, but wrong. Our first amendment rights (freedom of speech, expression, press, etc.) is the real key here.
Don't be led astray by talking points that try to rationalize our first amendment rights being infringed upon.
First they banned "dangerous speech." Then it was "hate speech." Then "misinformation." Now, they are just shooting for all political speech that the establishment doesn't like, by using a new weasel-word phrase "election interference."
No it is not. He got pulled into the weeds by a lesser point of contention (who has authority to define "election interference" speech) rather than focus at the heart of the issue- this is a matter of freedom of speech, and the press. No govt. entity has any lawful right to infringe on the first amendment.
The point I am trying to make is: Do not fall for the bait; the distraction; the minutia of "who can define [insert first amendment violating subject here].
Focus instead on the constitutional infringement itself, at its core. The banishment of words or subjects is clearly an assault on the first amendment. It is irrelevant how, or by whom the term "election interference" is defined, because the first amendment prohibits this.
Sorry, but wrong. Our first amendment rights (freedom of speech, expression, press, etc.) is the real key here.
Don't be led astray by talking points that try to rationalize our first amendment rights being infringed upon.
First they banned "dangerous speech." Then it was "hate speech." Then "misinformation." Now, they are just shooting for all political speech that the establishment doesn't like, by using a new weasel-word phrase "election interference."
Good point. First Amendment is more fundamental and upstream of “what is interference?”.
Nail well and truly driven down.
It is a stealth attack upon the First amendment, and you have just shown the progression of tyranny via changing the language.
That's the point he is making
No it is not. He got pulled into the weeds by a lesser point of contention (who has authority to define "election interference" speech) rather than focus at the heart of the issue- this is a matter of freedom of speech, and the press. No govt. entity has any lawful right to infringe on the first amendment.
The point I am trying to make is: Do not fall for the bait; the distraction; the minutia of "who can define [insert first amendment violating subject here].
Focus instead on the constitutional infringement itself, at its core. The banishment of words or subjects is clearly an assault on the first amendment. It is irrelevant how, or by whom the term "election interference" is defined, because the first amendment prohibits this.