@BontaHill I believe Ohio has a policy of releasing all requested bodycam videos to the public upon request. Unless this video came out earlier than what would be considered normal, all TMZ would have to pay is a Records and Processing Fee.
@richjmadrid_@RoscoesMr Also, from what I understand, there is a relatively large percentage of players that have this level of religiosity and it is common in football players. Is this anything more than players talking about God after a game? (Doesn't have to be a Christian God either.
@richjmadrid_@RoscoesMr Unless there is more than that quote, it doesn't seem like it is any more than a generic "Trust in God" response. I think of a "delusional religious nut job" and imagine much more intense sentiments.
@dilanesper Add in the fact that Self-ID policies allow Males to enter these facilities without even undergoing minimal Transition procedures and it's a situation bound for disaster.
Penises simply DO NOT belong in Women's Correctioanl Facilities.
@dilanesper Transwomen is horrific. These female inmates cannot protect themselves and are much more vulnerable to rape, violence and harassment.
It seems that a significant population of Transwomen in Female Prisons also happen to be (violent) sex offenders...
Evening viewing recommendation? On the Criterion Channel, watch David Lynch's WILD AT HEART (1990)! ❤️🔥 https://t.co/e8vIvRa8ZY
Lynch throws pulp melodrama, THE WIZARD OF OZ, surreal-kinky violence, and Elvis into a cauldron and brews this nightmarish soap opera in which outlaw lovers Sailor and Lula go on the run through a menacing South populated by a host of sinister weirdos. Adapted from the noir novel by Barry Gifford, WILD AT HEART is Lynch at both his far-out freakiest and most deliriously romantic.
🚨GIVEAWAY🚨
Win a copy of the upcoming 4K Ultra HD™ release of the “Steven Spielberg: The Spotlight Collection - Limited Edition Steelbook Library Case.”
To Enter:
✍️ Like and Retweet this post!
🫵 Follow @IrishFilmCritic!
Ends: Friday, June 5th
As federal and state lawmakers weigh legislation ostensibly meant to protect kids online, here are a few things to consider:
1) Generally, the only category of speech that is unprotected for minors but not for adults is content deemed obscene as to minors (namely, pornography). The Supreme Court has been reluctant to expand this exception and refused to do so for violent video games in 2011. Restricting kids’ access to social media means restricting their access to constitutionally protected speech.
2) Age verification for minors is age verification for everyone. Adults will have to prove they aren’t minors to access vast swaths of the internet.
3) Americans have benefited tremendously from keeping the internet free. A “papers, please” approach to internet access undermines that freedom, burdens protected speech, and erodes anonymity.
4) Once we concede that the government has the authority to dictate who may access the internet and how, we begin creating a permission structure for even greater government intrusion. That’s the kind of power authoritarians have historically sought.
5) Parents have tools at their disposal to regulate their kids’ internet usage. Failure to use them isn’t a problem for the government to solve with mandates, but with education. I’m a parent. I know how hard it can be. But parenting is my responsibility, not the government’s.
6) Security breaches happen. They’ve even happened to age verification providers.
7) We should not give up the free internet so easily. Once we do, it’s unlikely we’ll ever get it back. Does freedom carry risks? Yes. But they’re nothing compared to the risks of giving up our privacy and speech rights.