Oh, wow, this is a powerful statement. Thank you for this.

I’m not pissed off that he’s trying to clarify that due process is a legal term. I’m annoyed that he’s doing so at the expense of the guy’s point, and pretending the guy doesn’t understand due process. Like I’ve said, you can have an issue with him using ‘due process’ as shorthand, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t…

It really is quite astounding. At this point, I can only guess that they’re doing so intentionally.

Totally agree. Thanks.

Are you stupid or dishonest?

Here is what I’ve been saying, rather clearly:

My entire point was simply that he is clearly not saying that his actual constitutional rights were violated.

I have no idea if his life is ruined, nor do I care. That really has nothing to do with anything I’ve written.

Yeesh.

This is such a perfect response. Thank you.

I’ll ask as direct as possible: do you believe that this comedian, who likely beat his ex-girlfriend and raped another, when saying ‘due process,’ meant that A) he believes that his civil rights were violated, or B) was using ‘due process’ in the sense that his life is being ruined without him even being able to…

I don’t even know how to engage with this, but here goes:

Your response had nothing to do with what I wrote, and was just a way for you to say what he’s accused of doing is horrible. I don’t see what you’re looking for.

What the fuck are you talking about?

What is laughable or embarrassing about the way I’ve gone about this?

Yikes.

Yes, a lot of people do use the term ‘First Amendment’ incorrectly. And for those that do, continue to correct them, as I do as well.

NO FUCKING SHIT.

You’re mistaking my response as a defense of the guy, or his bitching.

Again, this is pedantry.