Posted on 04/01/2023 9:06:45 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Re: 60 - Of course they can discuss what they want.
It’s conjecture on the judge being a “McConnell judge”. That’s because the buck stops with President Trump. Trump didn’t have to nominate him. Rightly or wrongly, he’s a Trump judge.
Regardless, you would think there would be the intellectual curiosity to look at the TRO and determine why Judge Parker ruled the way he did.
Instead we are treated to these gems:
The judge is “an evil pedophile pervert who belongs burning in the pit of hell.”
Calling posters who want to review the specifics of the TRO “groomers”
Whatever. It’s obvious that the posters who post those things lack the intellectual prowess to discuss the legal reasoning and are aware of that. Years ago on FR, there were multiple FReepers who would discuss such a case. Now, FReepers call “groomer” and scurry off.
The original post summarized the judge’s reasons: vague and over-broad. The only thing I felt was “broad language” was saying it applied to a child that was not an adult. They need to specify an age. I see no reason to list every place that the child might see adult entertainment.
That is exactly what that poster is…hall monitor.
“Does a citizen’s private residence count? How about a camping ground at a national park? What if a minor browsing the world wide web from a public library views an ‘adult cabaret performance’?” Parker wrote in Friday’s ruling. “Ultimately, the Statute’s broad language clashes with the First Amendment’s tight constraints.”
Does that mean that Romeo and Juliet is banned in Tennessee just because a man is playing the role of Juliet?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.