Brian Kemper

True, but given the availability of the Notes, and other summaries, do we really need an AI to do essentially the same thing?

It appears that this product doesn't provide the summarization that makes Cliff Notes attractive to students. These books would still be fairly longer than Cliff Notes.

Reader - "Please make 'Do dot go gentle Into that good night' easier to read."

AI: "Sure: 'Don't give into death.'"

So, the machine will essentially turn works of literary and poetic art into Jack and Jill books.

deploy the military outside of a declaration of war.

Largely through argument, which may be false depending upon what military action occurs, that not all military conflicts are "wars."

No, she did acknowledge that is what the Constitution requires, which is an implicit correction of her prior point.

And I wouldn't call the next part a "different claim." It's an argument that has been used since for a very long time by both parties to explain why the President can ...

If onlyJesus had killed many people in ash, we'd have far more evidence of his existence.

Plus, should we really expect that, with regard to a spiritual leader of uneducated oppressed people, such followers would have been documenting interactions, etc. with Jesus?

a lesser need for corporation speech rights to be unlimited.

The arguments both for and against Citizens United is far more complex than "corporations are legal persons and have 1A rights."

were reasonable as applied to corporations rather than individuals.

The dissent pointed to precedent finding simllar restrictions to be reasonable, that the government did have a compelling interest due to the impact of money on elections, and there as a ...

If you look at the dissent, the arguments don't say that corporations aren't legal persons and shouldn't have the freedom of speech rights.

Instead, their analysis goes more into a balanced analysis comparing the "compelling" government interest in the restrictions and whether restrictions ...

Well, there was a law that stopped the flow of such money and then SCOTUS said the law was unconstitutional, so ....

Plus, it ignores that corporations are assemblies of people. The corps are owned by people, it's people who run them and staff them.

When a corporation "speaks," a person or multiple people are speaking.

That's a widely held, yet mistaken belief.

Corporations have been legal persons with freedom of speech for over a 100 years.

And they should have it. If corps didn't have freedom of speech, Trump could shut down CNN or NYT, and in so doing, would not violate 1A.

Here's another thing I can see Trump saying:

"For me, it was consensual sex. For them, it was rape."

It was about a law that prohibited corporations and labor unions using general treasury funds for ad opposing or supporting an election candidate.

success, because his goal is simply to raise the cost of opposing or defying him in any way.

Thus, his proposal would put media outlets in a bind which would only raise their risks when in providing information.

false.

But such people would also have the ability (and likely already do as defamation) to sue the media outlet stating the assessment of their statement is itself a "lie."

Trump and others have already shown a willingness to bring such defamation actions, no matter the likelihood of ...

Let's also note that he has provided various stances that are not compatible.

For instance, previously, he stated that a new organization when quoting a statement by a politician (and presumably anyone else), should provide information about whether the statement is true or ...

Even in that last paragraph, the action would be how a law injures someone.

The proposal here wouldn't be a suit challenging a law but rather essentially bringing a tort claim: a lie told by the media.

Come on, why waste the money.

The Amendment should be that each of them has to take submersible tours of the Titanic.

knew it would never pass the House and so, moved forward with it so that they could use it as proof that Trump really doesn't care about solving the immigration "problem."

Which they did to varying degrees.

And query whether the Dems actually thought it wouldn't have been torpedoed by Trump/GOP higher ups.

Trump has shown he understands how powerful political "wins" or "losses" are in an election year and that the GOP should never help a Dem admin get a win.

There's a good chance that Dems ...

matter.

With both personal and official legal actions, Trump has shown that he doesn't really care if he ends up winning or losing the case.

The purpose is to raise the cost for people to oppose him.

engage in such action.

If this law was in effect, there would be an applicable law for indictment/legal action.

If such actions was brought 2-3 weeks before an election, nothing would happen legally before the election so even if the charges were eventually thrown out/disproven, it ....

admin tried to indict congress people for a video about the military refusing to follow unlawful orders.

He failed spectacularly there because there was no plausible crime that they committed. And he's already threatened action against "fake news" and other "lies" even though he can't ....

And the fact that Trump is already abusing his power to hurt political opponents (and has been stopped by the courts in a number of cases, especially when it comes to speech) is proof that someone like him would DEFINITELY abuse any power to police "lies" by his political opponents.

FFS, his ...

malice" in its decision in New York Times v. Sullivan.

Because SCOTUS is even more skeptical of laws touching upon speech when such laws bear directly on political speech, as this one most certainly does.

that lies are generally protected by the First Amendment unless they fall into the long-standing and narrow 1A exceptions like defamation and perjury.

It's also why SCOTUS created a higher standard of proof for defamation cases when brought by public figures, requiring proof of "actual ...

It's like now as I have stated repeatedly in this thread how Trump and Co. are abusing the narrow and small power they already have.

Giving the gov't this power would make things worse and make it even likelier that Trump could affect the election.

It's why SCOTUS in US v. Alvarez held ...

I'll also add that the fact patterns present in such past precedent often are similar in various ways to the patterns here.

And because we know SCOTUS ruled against laws in similar fact patterns in those cases, we know how they'd rule with this law.