Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

AZJonnie

(2,475 posts)

5. I'm not saying what he actually meant is unclear, only that it's *just* ambiguous enough that it allows

Reply to RandySF (Reply #4)

Wed Dec 3, 2025, 03:54 AM

7 hrs ago

for constitutional wiggle-room in a situation where the 1A might logically apply, such as this one.

It's almost like the dude specifically chose this word to have exactly this courtroom fight, if I'm in CT mode.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

1 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

oberle

6 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Judge orders readmission of law student who posted 'Jews must be abolished' [View all] Behind the Aegis 9 hrs ago OP

there are lots of places where hate speech is not tolerated stopdiggin 8 hrs ago #1

Any means necessary is a threat exboyfil 8 hrs ago #2

The ambiguity stems from the word "abolished" which is not clearly calling for violence AZJonnie 8 hrs ago #3

Oh it's very clear to me. RandySF 7 hrs ago #4

I'm not saying what he actually meant is unclear, only that it's *just* ambiguous enough that it allows AZJonnie 7 hrs ago #5

There's a couple of things that give him some legal leeway EdmondDantes_ 4 hrs ago #6