@ELTIEMPO arreglen el link sobre los 11 congresistas de U.S. que piden investigar a Abelardo de la Espriella. Cuando le doy click al enlace me lleva a otra historia sobre el apoyo de Javier Milei a Abelardo.
I don’t condone violence, I don’t celebrate violence, and I don’t celebrate Charlie Kirk’s death. But Clay, everything you just wrote is deeply wrong, legally, constitutionally, and morally.
First, you’re a member of Congress. Threatening to use your “authority” to punish private businesses for speech you don’t like is an abuse of office and a blatant violation of the First Amendment. Big Tech platforms can set their own moderation policies, but government officials cannot compel them to silence legal speech simply because it offends your politics. That’s not patriotism, that’s authoritarianism.
Second, you’re talking about lifetime bans, revoking business licenses, blacklisting people from schools, and even taking away their driver’s licenses, not for committing crimes, but for posting something online that you find distasteful. That is unconstitutional and anti-American. In this country, people don’t lose their livelihoods, their education, or their ability to drive a car because they said something you didn’t like.
Third, you’ve turned Charlie Kirk into some kind of saint “armed only with a Bible, a microphone, and a Constitution.” The reality is, he built his career on spreading division, hate, and lies. You may admire him, but rewriting his life story doesn’t give you the right to trample on the rights of millions of other Americans.
You claim you want “zero tolerance for violent political hate content.” Fine, but what you’re describing is government-mandated censorship and punishment of private citizens. That’s not defending the Constitution, it’s shredding it. And if you can’t see that, maybe you should revisit the document you claim to be “armed with.”
@Nina40871990@StephenVO9@BrianJerrity@TRUMP_ARMY_@elonmusk Because the 6-3 supreme court majority acquitted him. Where 3 of those judges were appointed by Trump. You can see that their decision definitely was not unbiased, and where their true loyalty really lies. That is the actual set up.
@Linterna_De_Dia@YayoGutierrez Paaaaarce yo quedé traumatizado con esa escena. Lo peor es que ni lo muestran, todo queda en la imaginación de uno. Obra maestra de película.
@dvassallo@maxescu So your tweet ultimately relies on your subjective opinion of which title you dislike the most?. Hardly an argument to your commentary of sensationalism.
@dvassallo@wealthpotion The same way it is @MKBHD YouTube channel and as long as he is not misleading his followers I don't see morning unethical or wrong with it. You said it yourself projects fail, it is not in the hands of a YouTuber.
@dvassallo How the hell is it unethical to have an unbiased opinion of a product that you bought?. Regardless of the amount of followers he has, he is giving his opinion and pointing out the flaws of the product. Harm would be done if he lied about the product.
@nacional_memes La vi y me pareció regular. El tercer acto el CGI baja de calidad y Úrsula está muy obscura (probablemente para evitar que noten el mal CGI). Halle Bailey hace un buen papel con una gran voz, fuera de eso no me pareció la gran cosa. Mejor esperen a que este en Disney+