RobotToaster

joined 2 years ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 71 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 18 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Honestly the only thing that concerns me about GM crops is allowing companies like monsanto to have patent monopolies on seeds.

[–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 81 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The secret ingredient was oil, ordinary oil, laced with nothing more than a few spoonfuls of THC.

[–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 74 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Octopodes no longer die when they give birth, meaning they can teach their young and form societies.

[–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 19 points 10 months ago

Laundering money using soap is a little on the nose.

[–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

But the SC should never decide the president in a Democracy

That already happened in Bush v. Gore

[–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 36 points 10 months ago

The boomers at the Vatican have no idea what they've unleashed with this.

[–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 96 points 10 months ago (5 children)

To give you an actual answer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_threat

The true threat doctrine was established in the 1969 Supreme Court case Watts v. United States.[3] In that case, an eighteen-year-old male was convicted in a Washington, D.C. District Court for violating a statute prohibiting persons from knowingly and willfully making threats to harm or kill the President of the United States.[3]

The conviction was based on a statement made by Watts, in which he said, "[i]f they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J."[3] Watts appealed, leading to the Supreme Court finding the statute constitutional on its face, but reversing the conviction of Watts.

In reviewing the lower court's analysis of the case, the Court noted that "a threat must be distinguished from what is constitutionally protected speech."[3] The Court recognized that "uninhibited, robust, and wide open" political debate can at times be characterized by "vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." In light of the context of Watts' statement - and the laughter that it received from the crowd - the Court found that it was more "a kind of very crude offensive method of stating a political opposition to the President" than a "true threat."[3]

[–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 32 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I stole it from Babylon 5, but "assassin of joy" is one I've used a few times

[–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 0 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Windows hasn’t added any features of value since Windows ~~7~~ XP

[–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 30 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

What would an advanced alien race even consider fine art?

Six dimensional termite mounds?

Or they could see in a smaller range of frequencies, so what looks like a plain white room to us is a masterpiece of modern art to them?

view more: ‹ prev next ›