Slandering…by repeating words that they actually said.

Pat was never funny…and it was the same fucking joke repeated endlessly. Setting aside the gender politics thing, it was offensive for being intensely annoying (also true of many other SNL sketches of the era).

Getting offended by It's Pat is ridiculous. Getting offended by someone getting offended by It's Pat is doubly ridiculous.

It was the first film to be screened in the White House. Woodrow Wilson gushed about it, "like writing history with lightning!"

that context makes the point a little less silly…not like she woke up this morning and thought, today's the day I bring down It's Pat!

He's not factoring in the infinite plasticity of language, though. He can't buy them all!
TrumpIsProbablyaBedWetter.com, etc.

Thanks for the link. Raw meat! Raw meat! Raw meat!

My cats know they're not allowed to do certain things…so they just wait until I'm not around, and then they do those things. I believe that this basic deviousness is proof of high intelligence.

I agree…that second paragraph up there pertains to now, not 1919.

If you read the pamphlet that got Schenck in trouble, you'll find that it's much closer to advocating for the law to be changed than encouraging people to break the law.

The point is, your definition of "reasonable" might not match up with mine, so who decides? Examples of the "horror" that ensues when the state is free to throw people in jail for saying stuff that the state doesn't like are ubiquitous, so I'm surprised that you're asking for "evidence." It's everywhere.

(No one has ever said "Tell me more!" to one of my posts!)

I read a story once about a guy who got drunk and mooned some people…that instance of stupidity counts as "sex offense," and so completely ruined his life. Now, I'm not sure how typical that story is, but the law sometimes doesn't recognize a common-sense distinction between radically different offenses.

Your enemies on the other side of the political fence feel exactly the same way: some reasonable limits are justified. So, good luck with that.

Do you know where the "fire in a crowded theater" example comes from? It was used to put a guy in jail for speaking against the draft (World War I).

It's not Facebook banning them from using their site, but the state banning them from using Facebook…right?

So I've watched this show before, to get info. on what makes cats tick…but it's hard to trust that this guy has any idea what he's doing. (Do you become a cat whisperer simply by calling yourself that? What's the credentialing process?) The cats usually improve by the end of the show, so he must be doing something…

He seems to be mixing up the idea "religion is bullshit" with the idea "religion cannot be the object of scholarly inquiry." It would be impossible to make this error if he had ever taken a religion class, i.e., if he knew what he was talking about.

I've had some gnarly experiences at buffets (Chinese, Indian) where I felt like I couldn't possibly eat any more food..but I bet those pig-out sessions were on the level of 2,000-3,000 cals. over the course of an hour (?). So, not even close to this guy's achievement.

Even if you believe the part about mutant 6-legged chickens (which takes
some imagination), you'd also have to believe the "forced to change"
part, which is obviously false. It says "chicken" everywhere you look
in a KFC (if not on the sign itself). (Also, one could argue that meat from
a 6-legged mutant chicken is…