Hey SCOTUS, Ive got your next First Amendment case: pollution as speech. Can the act of billowing harmful gases into the air be considered an expression worthy of protection when there is obviously no nexus between the speech itself and the grievance? I.e., theres no logical relationship between the act of harming the environment and the intent of these assholes speech, which is merely to convey that they hate Obama, who spoke about protecting the environment. I run into a lot of people that really don’t like Obama at all, the salesperson said. If he’s into the environment, if he’s into this or that, we’re not. I hear a lot of that. To get a single [smoke] stack on my truck—that’s my way of giving them the finger. You want clean air and a tiny carbon footprint? Well, screw you. So really what this comes down to is whether contemptuous idiocy is speech worthy of protection. Pollution obviously is not speech. The harms outweigh the benefit of your contumely expressing how much you hate Barack Hussein NObama. Buuuuuut, you never know with this SCOTUS. Maybe thats all those oil companies have been doing all along -- exercising their disdain for humanity, the earth and its occupants by partially destroying it. Oh my apologies, I meant to say Oil People. businessinsider/conservatives-purposely-making-cars-spew-black-smoke-2014-7
Posted on: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 00:39:52 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015