We’re segregating speech now 😂😂 def setting us back a hundred years.

Does deciding who or what occupies or not in the woman’s control. That would be a hot take since that means also have to live with fibroids and other masses as well. Very hot take.

Good answer this question:

Someone’s hating from outside the club, because in my experience 15% of my class failed out or transferred out to an easier school.

I’m on board with that if it stops advertising itself as a platform and calls itself a publisher.

Idk what’s confusing for u.

No my original statement started the convo lmao.

Your position on illegal immigration doesn’t matter for the argument lol. But notice how it started a conversation on things we should do about immigration.

2. “Claptrap” is not an objective metric. What you see as claptrap may not be viewed as that by others. And by reducing speech you’re just shutting out ppl instead of challenging their ideas. Slippery slope to groupthink echo chambers. 👏🏽👏🏽

Give me an objective and consistent metric for to sort between the offensive vs hate speech. And for the sake of argument let’s assume that the speech in question is legal (not a call to action etc.)

I never said that lmao. I thought you would’ve realized how stupid ur example is. The teacher will get fired for not doing their job.

Ur bio says “Dont debate feelings” and yet all u got are insults and no facts. Lmao don’t u have a klan meeting to go to.

It doesn’t matter. lower courts are bound by this opinion. Ceballos is a narrow opinion unlike what u and ur room temp iq homophobes make it out to be for clickbait. Try actually reading. Biologist my ass. Can’t even read literature doubt u can read a scientific paper.

Nope. Pursuant to duties means operating on behalf of ur office. So a teacher making a lesson is speech pursuant to their duty. So a lesson is not protected but a teacher speaking to a student not about the lesson is still protected.

Then what’s a woman?

A person with xx genotype and developed secondary sexual characteristics of an adult human female.

Still wrong u clearly can’t read. It only prohibits sex lessons in lower grades nothing else. (Nice job moving the goal post) And they do have those protections but they have more restrictions than in a public square and I’m not searching case law for you.

I know what a woman is😂. You can take your clown ass back to the circus. I can’t speak for other degenerates like yourself.

Read the language of the bill. It doesn’t stop a gov employee/teacher from mentioning who their partner is or if they’re queer. Get rekt. The Republican Party used to be the party of liberty. Now it’s the party of those with room temperature iq.

Ur being intentionally vague. Yes it is unlawful for federal employees for example lobby or campaign on duty. Doesn’t change the fact that speaking about ones own life or family is still protected speech. Read a book. Retake civics.