Liste des Groupes | Revenir à ra tv |
On 4/6/2024 11:21 PM, BTR1701 wrote:In article <17c3e0882b0394ca$5560$3037545$10d55a65@news.newsdemon.com>,
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 4/6/2024 2:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:In article <17c3b829d977a4bb$361$1351842$40d50a60@news.newsdemon.com>,
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 4/5/2024 7:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:On Apr 5, 2024 at 3:57:07 PM PDT, "moviePig" <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 4/5/2024 4:30 PM, BTR1701 wrote:moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:What *opinion* -- of anything anywhere -- can't be contradicted? Fyi,
*that* would be a violation of 'free speech'...
No one's muzzling or prohibiting you from making contradictory
statements regarding the SCOTUS ruling. However, your right to free
speech doesn't immunize you from being wrong or bar others from pointing
out your wrongness.
...where "wrongness" means "of differing opinion".
You can have an opinion that SCOTUS decided wrongly and wish it had made a
different ruling but you can't have an opinion that the law is other than
it is.
The 'law' is what SCOTUS has opinions about. I can have *my* opinion
about either or both. Therein, the only "wrong" would be a misquoting.
No, the law is what it is and it's not what you claim. You can have your
own opinions but you can't have your own facts.
No? The law *isn't* text that SCOTUS has opinions about? ...as I may?
No, SCOTUS opinions become the law.
Including the dissenting ones?
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.