My impression? FIRE is 100% in on defense of 1A rights - no matter the speaker, the content, or the supporting parties - because limits can be used as a shield AND a sword.
I would be surprised if they did not support abolishing the disruption “standard” - why should students have fewer rights?
I would be surprised if they did not support abolishing the disruption “standard” - why should students have fewer rights?
December 27, 2025 at 3:56 PM
My impression? FIRE is 100% in on defense of 1A rights - no matter the speaker, the content, or the supporting parties - because limits can be used as a shield AND a sword.
I would be surprised if they did not support abolishing the disruption “standard” - why should students have fewer rights?
I would be surprised if they did not support abolishing the disruption “standard” - why should students have fewer rights?
I see what you did there! That’s an excellent example of the same type of absolutism FIRE uses in their defense of free speech.
I wish they were able to find more liberal-aligned cases to use to protect the 1st Amendment.
I wish they were able to find more liberal-aligned cases to use to protect the 1st Amendment.
December 27, 2025 at 1:06 AM
I see what you did there! That’s an excellent example of the same type of absolutism FIRE uses in their defense of free speech.
I wish they were able to find more liberal-aligned cases to use to protect the 1st Amendment.
I wish they were able to find more liberal-aligned cases to use to protect the 1st Amendment.
Yes! It is worth criticizing!
It’s also worth working to understand their approach so that criticism can be more informed.
It’s also worth working to understand their approach so that criticism can be more informed.
December 26, 2025 at 7:16 PM
Yes! It is worth criticizing!
It’s also worth working to understand their approach so that criticism can be more informed.
It’s also worth working to understand their approach so that criticism can be more informed.
I don’t see how that is a contradiction. Their approach is that free speech is free speech, regardless of the content.
I don’t necessarily appreciate their approach, so I don’t donate.
I do appreciate being able to call current administration members evil without being threatened with jail.
I don’t necessarily appreciate their approach, so I don’t donate.
I do appreciate being able to call current administration members evil without being threatened with jail.
December 26, 2025 at 7:14 PM
I don’t see how that is a contradiction. Their approach is that free speech is free speech, regardless of the content.
I don’t necessarily appreciate their approach, so I don’t donate.
I do appreciate being able to call current administration members evil without being threatened with jail.
I don’t necessarily appreciate their approach, so I don’t donate.
I do appreciate being able to call current administration members evil without being threatened with jail.
Thanks! I read the article and the full email exchange. It’s clear that you didn’t misquote him - and that that is not his concern, but the context in which you use the quote is a concern .
Seems legit - like your clarification that to you weren’t implying FIRE was anti-trans, but what do I know?
Seems legit - like your clarification that to you weren’t implying FIRE was anti-trans, but what do I know?
December 26, 2025 at 6:50 PM
Thanks! I read the article and the full email exchange. It’s clear that you didn’t misquote him - and that that is not his concern, but the context in which you use the quote is a concern .
Seems legit - like your clarification that to you weren’t implying FIRE was anti-trans, but what do I know?
Seems legit - like your clarification that to you weren’t implying FIRE was anti-trans, but what do I know?
I suspect they would argue that you can’t support free speech for some and not others - and that speech I find disturbing, disgusting, and hateful is still protected by the 1st Amendment.
I guess I have to trust that view sometimes works in my favor.
I guess I have to trust that view sometimes works in my favor.
December 26, 2025 at 6:42 PM
I suspect they would argue that you can’t support free speech for some and not others - and that speech I find disturbing, disgusting, and hateful is still protected by the 1st Amendment.
I guess I have to trust that view sometimes works in my favor.
I guess I have to trust that view sometimes works in my favor.
FIRE does, indeed, get to choose the cases and parties they get involved with - and it seems they always choose based on the 1A implications, not on the parties involved.
And it’s really annoying when the parties are reprehensible.
And it’s really annoying when the parties are reprehensible.
December 26, 2025 at 6:40 PM
FIRE does, indeed, get to choose the cases and parties they get involved with - and it seems they always choose based on the 1A implications, not on the parties involved.
And it’s really annoying when the parties are reprehensible.
And it’s really annoying when the parties are reprehensible.
He’s a lawyer responding to someone he hasn’t worked with before - brief responses shouldn’t be surprising.
He wasn’t asked three succinct questions so much as being provided meandering prompts.
And anyone who doesn’t understand that FIRE takes an absolute 1A approach hasn’t done their homework.
He wasn’t asked three succinct questions so much as being provided meandering prompts.
And anyone who doesn’t understand that FIRE takes an absolute 1A approach hasn’t done their homework.
December 26, 2025 at 6:16 PM
He’s a lawyer responding to someone he hasn’t worked with before - brief responses shouldn’t be surprising.
He wasn’t asked three succinct questions so much as being provided meandering prompts.
And anyone who doesn’t understand that FIRE takes an absolute 1A approach hasn’t done their homework.
He wasn’t asked three succinct questions so much as being provided meandering prompts.
And anyone who doesn’t understand that FIRE takes an absolute 1A approach hasn’t done their homework.
And FIRE seems pretty absolutist in their first-amendment defense. I’m pretty unaware, but I t wouldn’t surprise me to see them align with some groups that I find pretty repugnant if a case supported FIRE’s free speech position - it probably shouldn’t surprise you, either.
December 26, 2025 at 5:33 PM
And FIRE seems pretty absolutist in their first-amendment defense. I’m pretty unaware, but I t wouldn’t surprise me to see them align with some groups that I find pretty repugnant if a case supported FIRE’s free speech position - it probably shouldn’t surprise you, either.
As FIRE is the only other organization mentioned in that fourth paragraph, I, too, read it as you characterizing FIRE as the “other” anti-trans organization.
December 26, 2025 at 5:27 PM
As FIRE is the only other organization mentioned in that fourth paragraph, I, too, read it as you characterizing FIRE as the “other” anti-trans organization.
Are you telling us that they practice with them a lot? 🎅🏻
December 26, 2025 at 5:49 AM
Are you telling us that they practice with them a lot? 🎅🏻
So many useful idiots.
December 23, 2025 at 5:56 PM
So many useful idiots.
I mean, who would want to accept that challenge?
C’mon! Robertson can’t keep it in?!
C’mon! Robertson can’t keep it in?!
December 12, 2025 at 2:28 AM
I mean, who would want to accept that challenge?
C’mon! Robertson can’t keep it in?!
C’mon! Robertson can’t keep it in?!
Down the road a bit - after the great unfucking - I’m a bit fond of justices not hearing/deciding cases involving the admin or person of a president who appointed them.
Also kind of fond of requiring a majority of members of each party > 10 senators to be seated.
Not that dems won’t roll, but…
Also kind of fond of requiring a majority of members of each party > 10 senators to be seated.
Not that dems won’t roll, but…
December 9, 2025 at 12:36 AM
Down the road a bit - after the great unfucking - I’m a bit fond of justices not hearing/deciding cases involving the admin or person of a president who appointed them.
Also kind of fond of requiring a majority of members of each party > 10 senators to be seated.
Not that dems won’t roll, but…
Also kind of fond of requiring a majority of members of each party > 10 senators to be seated.
Not that dems won’t roll, but…
We’ve (white people) had it too easy. So many of us want to fall in love with the candidate - and, more importantly, expect them to win our vote.
It pains me - in part because it seems that DNC would be pretty easy to take over from within with a little effort.
It pains me - in part because it seems that DNC would be pretty easy to take over from within with a little effort.
December 8, 2025 at 4:01 AM
We’ve (white people) had it too easy. So many of us want to fall in love with the candidate - and, more importantly, expect them to win our vote.
It pains me - in part because it seems that DNC would be pretty easy to take over from within with a little effort.
It pains me - in part because it seems that DNC would be pretty easy to take over from within with a little effort.
It may be a little unreasonable to expect Americans to hold up Democrats (specifically leadership) as inevitable saviors of American democracy…
December 6, 2025 at 9:51 PM
It may be a little unreasonable to expect Americans to hold up Democrats (specifically leadership) as inevitable saviors of American democracy…
Yeah, Ai is (imho) making a lot of things worse (broadly and generally) for a lot of people.
Although it seems to have driven a number of advances in machine learning, they largely get lost to the general public in the slop of Ai.
Although it seems to have driven a number of advances in machine learning, they largely get lost to the general public in the slop of Ai.
November 30, 2025 at 9:12 AM
Yeah, Ai is (imho) making a lot of things worse (broadly and generally) for a lot of people.
Although it seems to have driven a number of advances in machine learning, they largely get lost to the general public in the slop of Ai.
Although it seems to have driven a number of advances in machine learning, they largely get lost to the general public in the slop of Ai.
They both moved from journalists to authors what seems like a long time ago.
Is there a term for reality-show-style writing and editing?
Is there a term for reality-show-style writing and editing?
November 29, 2025 at 5:46 PM
They both moved from journalists to authors what seems like a long time ago.
Is there a term for reality-show-style writing and editing?
Is there a term for reality-show-style writing and editing?
I CANNOT WAIT until we separate machine learning from Ai - and folks who embrace that difference might fare a bit better if the Ai bubble bursts.
November 29, 2025 at 5:40 PM
I CANNOT WAIT until we separate machine learning from Ai - and folks who embrace that difference might fare a bit better if the Ai bubble bursts.
Shaved Dave is the best Dave.
November 28, 2025 at 4:25 PM
Shaved Dave is the best Dave.
Yeah, girls are icky. 😂
November 25, 2025 at 5:37 PM
Yeah, girls are icky. 😂
We have a great holiday schedule at work, including the week between Christmas and New Year’s Day - but Friday, January 2nd, isn’t a holiday.
Maybe too many people are carrying over PTO, but this just makes the company look, um…, thrifty.
Maybe too many people are carrying over PTO, but this just makes the company look, um…, thrifty.
November 25, 2025 at 5:30 PM
We have a great holiday schedule at work, including the week between Christmas and New Year’s Day - but Friday, January 2nd, isn’t a holiday.
Maybe too many people are carrying over PTO, but this just makes the company look, um…, thrifty.
Maybe too many people are carrying over PTO, but this just makes the company look, um…, thrifty.
I just can’t understand how online leftists and DSA types imagine their policy goals becoming reality.
At some point, don’t you have to stop raging against the night?
At some point, don’t you have to stop raging against the night?
November 23, 2025 at 3:30 PM
I just can’t understand how online leftists and DSA types imagine their policy goals becoming reality.
At some point, don’t you have to stop raging against the night?
At some point, don’t you have to stop raging against the night?
I don’t know that McConnell is any more capable (or in control) of making his own decisions at this point than Feinstein was at the end of her service.
November 23, 2025 at 3:28 PM
I don’t know that McConnell is any more capable (or in control) of making his own decisions at this point than Feinstein was at the end of her service.