All Activity
- Past hour
-
Bills vs Chiefs WR investment
Ed_Formerly_of_Roch replied to Mikie2times's topic in The Stadium Wall
When you have a QB like Allen and Mahomes or a Brady, Manning in prior years, they can all easily make a mediocre WR look like #1. Adding a true #1 WR to the Bills would just mean less catches for everyone else and maybe even less running plays by Cook. And if like many of the true #1 WR's in about 2 years adding more discontent too. Look at the one year when we had Bledsoe throwing to Peerless Price and made him look great. We were able to get a 1st round pick for him in a trade. How'd that turn out for Atlanta? -
ANTIFA: Designated Terrorist Organization
Roundybout replied to BillsFanNC's topic in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
There is no such thing as antifa but whatever keeps you people out of the same bars as me, that will be fine. -
What about inciting violence? The First Amendment does not protect incitement, but the Supreme Court has defined that term quite narrowly, requiring a likelihood of imminent violence. Mere advocacy of violence, terrorism or the overthrow of the government is not enough; the words must be meant to and be likely to produce violence or lawlessness right away. In 1969, in Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court unanimously overturned the conviction of a leader of a Ku Klux Klan group under an Ohio statute that banned the advocacy of terrorism. The Klan leader, Clarence Brandenburg, had urged his followers at a rally to “send the Jews back to Israel” and to “bury” Black people, using a racial slur. He also said they should consider “revengeance” against politicians and judges who were unsympathetic to white people. Only Klan members and journalists were present. Because Mr. Brandenburg’s words fell short of calling for immediate violence in a setting where such violence was likely, the Supreme Court ruled that he could not be prosecuted for incitement. Mr. Trump has been the beneficiary of that ruling. When he was running for president in 2016, he pointed to some protesters at one of his rallies and told the crowd to “get ’em out of here.” The protesters, who said they were then viciously assaulted, sued him for inciting a riot. Mr. Trump won the suit. A federal appeals court, referring to Brandenburg, ruled that his exhortation was protected by the First Amendment. “In the ears of some supporters, Trump’s words may have had a tendency to elicit a physical response, in the event a disruptive protester refused to leave,” Judge David W. McKeague wrote for the majority, “but they did not specifically advocate such a response.”
-
Can courts prohibit offensive speech that causes listeners distress? Here again, the Supreme Court has said “no.” Courts would not stop a planned march by the American Nazi Party in Skokie, Ill., in 1977, though it would have been deeply distressing to the many Holocaust survivors who lived there. In 2011, by an 8-to-1 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protected the Westboro Baptist Church, which protested at military funerals with signs bearing messages like “America is Doomed” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers.” “Speech is powerful,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain.” But under the First Amendment, he went on, “we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker.” Instead, the national commitment to free speech, he said, required protection of “even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.”
-
Game week thread - Dolphins at Bills TNF
Low Positive replied to BillsFan619's topic in The Stadium Wall
new name for screencast-o-matic, if that helps. -
Oh you guys are playing dolls again huh Why is he some kind of holy martyr? Why is he infallible? Why is he getting treated the same as the Pope? Is this the best you have? A stupid edgelord podcaster?
-
Hey old guys, it's my turn and I want some advice...
Mike in Horseheads replied to Just Jack's topic in Off the Wall
I was awake and watched the first one, second one (different Dr) and I was knocked out big time. -
I'm sure that's going to go over well when he told the audience a lie. The guy mislead an audience. The guys own parents and friends said he was a left extremist. He specifically stated he was against everything Charlie Kirk. And Kimmel told millions upon millions that this kid was MAGA. ABC has every right to fire this guy for that. That is intentionally misleading the public and you're in the spotlight. There will be no lawsuit.
-
Game week thread - Dolphins at Bills TNF
Sierra Foothills replied to BillsFan619's topic in The Stadium Wall
I've never seen anything created on screenpal. Pretty cool! -
-
Holy crap, I'm finally coming to Buffalo! 53 years in the making
Hellcamino replied to Hellcamino's topic in The Stadium Wall
We went there today! Most of the structure is gone but it was still cool to see! -
LOL Jimmy Kimmel isn't in jail. ABC removed him. If they thought it was a violation of free speech, they would have kept him on the air because they would win a court case easily right? You say this is a clear cut easy violation of Freedom of Speech case. I say it's not. Lets revisit this thread down the road to see how old Jimmy is doing in his civil suit against the government shall we?