TexasCHLforum.com

strogg wrote:

C-dub wrote: I suppose it would be, but there's always that little caveat that if it's incites a riot or violence then all bets are off. And it seems like some folks are so easily incited these days that just saying "Thank you M'am" can get you in trouble.

You know it's a sad day in this world when that happens. I actually had a coworker of mine who warned me a while back that she's from Texas and says sir, ma'am, etc a lot. And I went, "wait what? I don't mind... why would you think that?" And then I learned, some snowflake actually did get butt-hurt from innocuous gestures of kindness from her. Only in California...

I address everyone in the same manner. I never had anyone get angry, but did have one tell me that I didn't have to say ma'am, every time I answered. I told her my mother would get up out of her grave, and "whoop" me, if I addressed a lady in any other manner, and then "whoop" me again for making her have to get up out of her grave, and I did not want to have to deal with that.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

cheezit wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 3_1o13.pdf

The decision was 8:1 in favor. True hate speech is a problem, but it isn't one that needs the intervention of law enforcement.

Link is now dead.
Google still works.

Hmmm..... did I get duped? Let me do a little research.....

This decision came down in June. Not that MSM reported on it, but they are dredging it back up to try and criticize the POTUS. Looking through some of the links, our great friend Piers Morgan thinks there should be exceptions for Nazis. That should tell you everything you need to know about who is opposed. They couldn't report that even their progressive justices voted the same way as the "alt right" ones did. They are only now bringing it up to try and throw dispersions on the Constitution.
They are now calling it a precedence, despite the history, of SCOTUS rulings, for the past hundred years or so including ruling against Macarthy in the 50s.