ACLU is explicitly arguing in court that the First Amendment's free speech clause has been interpreted *too broadly* by courts, and are advocating *a more restrictive view* of what free speech means.

submitted by Chipit from twitter.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]StillLessons 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks for this link. You're right. It's right on target.

While this paper explains a lot, however, there are people who wouldn't espouse the views it holds but who still - to varying degrees - support the insanity. The people I'm thinking of are being lied to; they don't recognize the reality of what they are being sold and are then passing on. But something in the lies must be appealing to them at some deep level. In this paper, the strategy is quite explicit. But how are those enacting this strategy hooking the people who would reject such a plan if it were stated explicitly? In other words, all lies have to have an appeal. What is it in the lies we are being told that are so appealing that the numbers of the well-meaning population are still aligned with them?