Got it, giving an opinion that someone should not be invited to speak at a specific location is apparently not an expression of free speech, it’s suppression of free speech. Just like how if someone comes up to you on the street and starts yelling in your face, it’d be suppression of speech for you to ask them to do that somewhere else.
You’re literally claiming things that are not true. Voicing your opinion against a prospective (as in it hasn’t even happened) action by the Speaker of the House is a right afforded to everyone, including representatives. Speaking against something is not perversely somehow suppressing speech. Saying someone is not allowed to speak against something is suppressing of speech.
You have not explained your reasoning at all on how saying they’re against Netanyahu speaking in front of the House is subversion of free speech and not just those representatives exercising their own freedom of speech. That is exactly what freedom of speech is, the right for everyone in the US to voice their opinions.
In contrast, there is no right to speak in front of the House, especially not for a foreign politician. The Speaker can invite someone to speak, and if anyone physically interferes with the invitee’s speaking or shouts over them, that would be a violation of House procedures, not any infringement on their freedom of speech. They would not have been silenced or punished. They would not have been gagged (physically or otherwise). They would still be able voice their opinions.
Actual examples of speech suppression would be searching and questioning pro-Palestinian journalists at the border, and arrests of peaceful non trespassing protestors.
Did you sit down and watch the whole movie and not just the dramatic moments as YouTube clips? Outside of a few good Denzel moments, the movie was just awful in terms of dialogue, pacing, and blunt ‘foreshadowing’
Oh they found him dead, and was there a speedy trial of the entire village in absentia that afternoon? Dark parallels to mass lynching of black people in the Jim Crow south.
It’s a bank not a hedge fund. The investors would be the regular people that made deposits- you know, the victims of the fraud. So your knee jerk reaction is “investors bad” without thinking about anything?
That was one scene out of a whole trilogy of Stormtroopers having terrible aim.
In early depictions of Batman, there were times in which he freely killed criminals and times where he was an officially deputized state agent. In contrast, most depictions since at least the late 80s and 90s were much more progressive, with Bruce Wayne being the biggest philanthropist in Gotham, helping to provide low cost housing and healthcare, as well as funding criminal rehabilitation and direct job placement for ex-cons with Wayne Industries. Writers were aware of the other aspects of justice that Batman needed to embody long before it was trendy on the internet to edgily portray Batman as a billionaire who enjoys beating people up for fun.
That’s because the book was not written in English. The translation preserves a lot of the cadence of the original Chinese writing. You may not be used to it, but that’s not uncommon for translated works in general.
It’s this famous Hong Kong movie scene: https://youtu.be/szPqlLQxSGY?t=1m31s
The audio in the animation is the Mandarin dub, the YouTube video is of the Cantonese original.
This is the worst misuse of this meme format I’ve ever seen. It would’ve been so easy to do the right format too:
Is my legal case so incredibly weak?
No, it’s my lawyers who are incompetent.
Because it’s a specific subset of patronizing, where it wouldn’t have happened if the target were not a woman.
Official gov ID photo.