threatening to murder me and my son.Bronstein threatened to murder you and your son? Is that on the video (I didn't watch it because I don't want to watch a guy get murdered)?
Alaska Air is the main airline into Juneau, the capitol.I believe the only airline serving Juneau. This article says "only airline with scheduled flights", which I think means she would have to charter a private plane every time she wanted to go (or go by boat). I assume that gets expensive pretty dang fast. https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/airline-news/2021/04/26/alaska-airlines-lora-reinbold-ban-airline-bans-lawmaker-over-masks/7380651002/
never sticks around to explain why.I guess he's just too restless.
I was going to suggest you try to come up with your own insults, but then I remember what happens when you do that.
“it oughta be outlawed”? on what grounds, given your own Constitution?From 1934-1996 we had laws controlling the amount of consolidation in media, and there was no constitutional issue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996
There’s a downside to the 1st Ammendment?There are downsides, but this isn't one of them.
You know we can see your other comments, right? You just said that the demon is spelled one way, and you searched with a different spelling, and then whined that it wasn't finding the demon.
Does Google not collect location information from iPhone users using Google Maps?
How do you not yet see the irony of complaining that you're not allowed to say any of those things while repeatedly saying all of them?
Holy crap he was complaining about google results for a misspelled search term...
And if you want to continue calling them "illegal aliens" and "crazed, stinking, drug-addled, possibly dangerous bums", guess what is stopping you? (hint: nothing) Doesn't seem very 1984 when you can keep saying whatever you want.
Hopefully there will be updates on the site for those of us who don't tweet.
First, whenever somebody claims to be silenced or censored, ask them to post the comment that they claim was censored.They'll almost never be willing to do so. They will describe it in vague terms that make it sound innocuous, but seldom will they be willing to show it verbatim.
“ See it through our eyes” may be one of today’s slogans and is quite accurate. And “do the right thing” gives a Defense for their ranking. But what happened to “your gatway to the internet”? Or “you search we travel”?How does any of those advertise "a service designed to record all publicly visible signs of any means or reason or message"?
(preview still broken)I don't think you need to keep mentioning it. We'll just assume it is going to broken forever if you don't turn on javascript on this domain.
This, in equivalence, is a service designed to record all publicly visible signs of any means or reason or message.There's your error. This is a service designed to give you pointers to resources it has decided are relevant to a query you submit. So I think the erroneous conclusion that not reporting some pages in search results is censorship stems from the erroneous categorization of what a search engine is.
It’s bait and switch advertising.Except they never claimed to be what you described. And in fact I challenge you to find any advertising that says so.
It absolutely is within the confines of that service/tool.No, it isn't. That doesn't even rise to the level of "you can't say that on my property" of social media moderation. It's "I've decided not to put up a sign on my property directing my users to your content." If that's censorship, then every decision to not talk about something is censorship.
That’s a pretty callous disregard for the lives of police officers and their families.If by "Maybe we’ll just end up with fewer cops" you thought I was talking about cops getting killed, I wasn't; I meant cops retiring and not being replaced. Otherwise, I would say the attitude of killing anyone necessary to get home shows callous disregard for the lives of the public (you know, those people the police are supposed to be serving and working for) and their families.
I can see how it would seem low risk to you, because you're actually deaf or hard of hearing. Would you be as comfortable pretending to have some other disability to escape police attention? Would you not be concerned about what might happen if you got caught?
Oh, you are not allowed to lie to the police at all? Really? What happened to free speech? I’m sure you are allowed in some situations. This is not perjury we are talking about.Again, that's easy for you to say because you wouldn't be lying. State laws vary, but I don't want to take the chance of even being charged, even if there is little chance of conviction.
This tip is not about avoiding arrest or detainment per se. It is about avoiding unwanted optional interactions with police.As we see from this story, optional interactions can quickly turn into detainment and arrest more or less at police discretion.
And relying on Constitutional Rights, didnt help Mr. Buster though.On the contrary, it got all the charges dismissed.
If Buster had pretended he was Deaf and incapable of verbal interactions, and walked away, he could have avoided all the legal troubles he had to go through.Possibly. That's pure speculation.
Is it a dangerous game if you are a good actor? In my experience as Deaf person, I think no.Your experience as a deaf person is exactly what makes you unqualified to determine how hard it is to pass as a deaf person. Because you can't pretend to be deaf, you can't possibly know how hard it is to do convincingly.
You seem to have run out of periods. Here are a few you can use next time. ......................