Kalendae
@kalendae-arum.bsky.social
“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; …”
Amendment I
Amendment I
Why? Are you blocked so you can’t follow the link?
Anyway, here it is:
Anyway, here it is:
December 1, 2025 at 2:20 PM
Why? Are you blocked so you can’t follow the link?
Anyway, here it is:
Anyway, here it is:
Are you unable to follow the thread?
November 26, 2025 at 4:09 PM
Are you unable to follow the thread?
Let’s show the full conversation, shall we?
November 25, 2025 at 5:14 PM
Let’s show the full conversation, shall we?
And the author of this:
November 3, 2025 at 4:22 PM
And the author of this:
The Fairhope Police Department clearly does not understand the Miller Test for obscenity.
October 22, 2025 at 11:46 AM
The Fairhope Police Department clearly does not understand the Miller Test for obscenity.
Lieutenant Shane Nolte of the Fairhope Police Department clearly does not understand the Miller Test for obscenity.
October 22, 2025 at 11:43 AM
Lieutenant Shane Nolte of the Fairhope Police Department clearly does not understand the Miller Test for obscenity.
Obscenity has a 3-prong test and to be legally obscene all 3 prongs must fail.
If even 1 prong is met, the expression in question is not obscene.
No matter how you feel about prongs 1 & 2 this is clearly political so fails on prong 3.
(Personally I think it fails all 3.)
If even 1 prong is met, the expression in question is not obscene.
No matter how you feel about prongs 1 & 2 this is clearly political so fails on prong 3.
(Personally I think it fails all 3.)
October 21, 2025 at 2:32 PM
Obscenity has a 3-prong test and to be legally obscene all 3 prongs must fail.
If even 1 prong is met, the expression in question is not obscene.
No matter how you feel about prongs 1 & 2 this is clearly political so fails on prong 3.
(Personally I think it fails all 3.)
If even 1 prong is met, the expression in question is not obscene.
No matter how you feel about prongs 1 & 2 this is clearly political so fails on prong 3.
(Personally I think it fails all 3.)
Obscenity has a 3-prong test and to be legally obscene all 3 prongs must fail.
If even 1 prong is met, the expression in question is not obscene.
No matter how you feel about prongs 1 & 2 this is clearly political so fails on prong 3.
(Personally I think it fails all 3.)
If even 1 prong is met, the expression in question is not obscene.
No matter how you feel about prongs 1 & 2 this is clearly political so fails on prong 3.
(Personally I think it fails all 3.)
October 20, 2025 at 1:23 PM
Obscenity has a 3-prong test and to be legally obscene all 3 prongs must fail.
If even 1 prong is met, the expression in question is not obscene.
No matter how you feel about prongs 1 & 2 this is clearly political so fails on prong 3.
(Personally I think it fails all 3.)
If even 1 prong is met, the expression in question is not obscene.
No matter how you feel about prongs 1 & 2 this is clearly political so fails on prong 3.
(Personally I think it fails all 3.)
What the fuck is wrong with people?
There should be no hungry children at school because they are children and we are supposed to be civilized.
We feed inmates because they are inmates. Starving them would not be an excuse to starve children. (And again, we are supposed to be civilized.)
There should be no hungry children at school because they are children and we are supposed to be civilized.
We feed inmates because they are inmates. Starving them would not be an excuse to starve children. (And again, we are supposed to be civilized.)
October 17, 2025 at 1:42 PM
What the fuck is wrong with people?
There should be no hungry children at school because they are children and we are supposed to be civilized.
We feed inmates because they are inmates. Starving them would not be an excuse to starve children. (And again, we are supposed to be civilized.)
There should be no hungry children at school because they are children and we are supposed to be civilized.
We feed inmates because they are inmates. Starving them would not be an excuse to starve children. (And again, we are supposed to be civilized.)
This is the OP and the thread - Trump was specifically mentioned.
And sovereign immunity protects the government from lawsuits for defamation.
And sovereign immunity protects the government from lawsuits for defamation.
October 13, 2025 at 1:50 AM
This is the OP and the thread - Trump was specifically mentioned.
And sovereign immunity protects the government from lawsuits for defamation.
And sovereign immunity protects the government from lawsuits for defamation.
What list of over 200? Are you talking about the “…more than 200 domestic affiliate stations.”
You do know cable channels are not domestic affiliates, right?
You do know cable channels are not domestic affiliates, right?
October 12, 2025 at 11:29 PM
What list of over 200? Are you talking about the “…more than 200 domestic affiliate stations.”
You do know cable channels are not domestic affiliates, right?
You do know cable channels are not domestic affiliates, right?
It’s what my Google says:
October 10, 2025 at 1:31 AM
It’s what my Google says:
It’s a response to this:
October 3, 2025 at 1:14 AM
It’s a response to this:
No, they were not.
www.fcc.gov/media/radio/...
See also the actual Fairness Doctrine and Red Lion v FCC.
www.fcc.gov/media/radio/...
See also the actual Fairness Doctrine and Red Lion v FCC.
September 13, 2025 at 10:33 PM
No, they were not.
www.fcc.gov/media/radio/...
See also the actual Fairness Doctrine and Red Lion v FCC.
www.fcc.gov/media/radio/...
See also the actual Fairness Doctrine and Red Lion v FCC.
This is the series of comments:
September 4, 2025 at 4:29 PM
This is the series of comments:
Until she blocks me :)
August 30, 2025 at 7:04 PM
Until she blocks me :)
You missed the beginning of that paragraph (note the on air date):
August 29, 2025 at 1:22 PM
You missed the beginning of that paragraph (note the on air date):
This you? If you weren’t talking about smoking being illegal, why did you mention calling the cops?
August 28, 2025 at 9:25 PM
This you? If you weren’t talking about smoking being illegal, why did you mention calling the cops?
So you think this is the one thing where Trump knows what he is talking about?
You think Carr is the one Trump sycophant who actually knows his job?
And did you miss this part of the article you posted:
You think Carr is the one Trump sycophant who actually knows his job?
And did you miss this part of the article you posted:
August 27, 2025 at 11:02 PM
So you think this is the one thing where Trump knows what he is talking about?
You think Carr is the one Trump sycophant who actually knows his job?
And did you miss this part of the article you posted:
You think Carr is the one Trump sycophant who actually knows his job?
And did you miss this part of the article you posted:
Did you not read this exchange?
August 27, 2025 at 12:33 AM
Did you not read this exchange?
This gives a whole new level of meaning to it:
August 26, 2025 at 1:57 AM
This gives a whole new level of meaning to it:
Fox News has never claimed they are not news.
See also:
See also:
August 24, 2025 at 5:28 PM
Fox News has never claimed they are not news.
See also:
See also:
Brandon, did you steal evidence about his wife?
August 23, 2025 at 1:01 PM
Brandon, did you steal evidence about his wife?