Forwarded from Enoch's News Blast 🍊💥🍊 (ENoCH elENoCHle)
Vimeo
Night Shift with ENoCH and Sandra
Episode 01
EriQmapJapan️️️️️️
NIGHTSHIFT EPISODE 1 REPLAY! https://vimeo.com/601523067
Enoch のミームコンテスト(お題は「NightShift:ナイトシフト」)が開催され、われらがJapanGreenDragonに所属してくださっている@PepehuKekbar さんが優勝しました! おめでとうございます! 😍👍🏻🍿🐸💯
*審査の様子はこちらの動画でご覧ください👆
*審査の様子はこちらの動画でご覧ください👆
Forwarded from Enoch's News Blast 🍊💥🍊 (ENoCH elENoCHle)
CONGRATULATIONS TO @PepehuKekbar ON BEING THE WINNER AND BEST MEMER OF THE 'NIGHTSHIFT' MEME CONTEST!!!
Forwarded from Jim Watkins
8kun-Jan-6-Committee Response.pdf
259.6 KB
The 8kun.top response to the January 6 committee Please share this: No confidentiality designations were attached to the congressional request and we are free to share what we'd like with the public (who should know what's going on in their government)
EriQmapJapan️️️️️️
8kun-Jan-6-Committee Response.pdf
1月6日調査委員会への 8kun.top(ロン・ワトキンス氏側)の回答です。議会からの要請には守秘義務の指定はなく(政府で何が起こっているのかを知るべき)、自由に一般に共有することができます。
EriQmapJapan️️️️️️
8kun-Jan-6-Committee Response.pdf
b. Constitutional Limits at Hand: Watkins II13
Forcing raucous businessmen of the 1930s or unorthodox platforms of the 2020s to answer questions about the most nebulous of topics—the underlying causes of political violence—is an unworkable congressional command.
Worse yet, prying into intimate ideologies and thoughts is a serious censorial chokehold. As courts have realized, the requirement that one reveal purchasers of books, pamphlets, or papers marks the start of a surveillance state. And just as courts would not embrace a surveillance state arising out of congressional investigations in the past, so too is this approach inappropriate today.
Compelling online platforms to share information about users who posted about efforts to “overturn, challenge, or otherwise interfere with the 2020 election or certification of electoral college results” chills the First Amendment rights of millions of Americans who were concerned about electoral integrity during the 2020 election.
Demanding that platforms produce mal-, mis-, or disinformation—terms that are undefined but that are usually euphemisms for speech the powers that be disagree with—works an equally pernicious chill against political speech in America. Once government is free to demand the names of users espousing unpopular, unorthodox ideas, free speech and free press rights on the internet disappear.
Forcing raucous businessmen of the 1930s or unorthodox platforms of the 2020s to answer questions about the most nebulous of topics—the underlying causes of political violence—is an unworkable congressional command.
Worse yet, prying into intimate ideologies and thoughts is a serious censorial chokehold. As courts have realized, the requirement that one reveal purchasers of books, pamphlets, or papers marks the start of a surveillance state. And just as courts would not embrace a surveillance state arising out of congressional investigations in the past, so too is this approach inappropriate today.
Compelling online platforms to share information about users who posted about efforts to “overturn, challenge, or otherwise interfere with the 2020 election or certification of electoral college results” chills the First Amendment rights of millions of Americans who were concerned about electoral integrity during the 2020 election.
Demanding that platforms produce mal-, mis-, or disinformation—terms that are undefined but that are usually euphemisms for speech the powers that be disagree with—works an equally pernicious chill against political speech in America. Once government is free to demand the names of users espousing unpopular, unorthodox ideas, free speech and free press rights on the internet disappear.