Daily Archives: July 5, 2024

Married Couple In Their 70s Who First Met In Kindergarten Die Together from Duo-Euthanasia – TooFab

Posted: July 5, 2024 at 5:25 am

After a lifetime together, Netherlands couple Jan Farber, 70, and wife Els van Leeningen, 71, decided to end their lives together as well. The two opened up about their decision to undergo duo-euthanasia for BBC's new documentary Loving, Living and Dying Together, before their deaths a month ago on June 3, 2024.

The couple, from Fireisland, met when they were in kindergarten and were married for nearly five decades before making the decision to end things, in a county where euthanasia and assisted suicide have been legal since the Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide (Review Procedures) Act went into effect in April 2002.

For Jan, he began struggling to back pain 1999, which wasn't alleviated at all by surgery in 2003. Per BBC, he could no longer work and began telling his family "he didn't want to live too long with his physical limitations."

In 2018, his wife then began to display early signs of dementia and was officially diagnosed with it in 2022. Upon learning her condition would only get worse over time, the couple began talking about duo-euthanasia more seriously with their son.

"This is very good," Els told BBC, pointing at her body, before pointing to her head and adding, "But this is terrible."

"If you take a lot of medicine, you live like a zombie," added Jans. "So, with the pain I have, and Els' illness, I think we have to stop this. I've lived my life, I don't want pain anymore. The life we've lived, we're getting old [for it]. We think it has to be stopped."

Els' general practitioner, however, was reportedly against performing euthanasia on a patient with dementia -- so the pair then reached out to a mobile clinic, the Centre of Expertise on Euthanasia, for the procedure. The BBC noted that cases of duo-euthanasia can be tricky, as doctors have to determine if both parties are totally on board, or whether one partner is influencing the other to end their life.

Doctors did allegedly determine Els had the mental capacity to decide whether she wanted to die when she made the choice, but the couple's son -- who wasn't named -- still had some reservations about the whole situation.

"You don't want to let your parents die," Jan told the outlet. "So there have been tears - our son said, 'Better times will come, better weather' - but not for me."

Their son also recalled the last full day he, his parents and their grandchildren spent together before their deaths.

"I went for a walk on the beach with my mum. The kids were playing, there were some jokes. It was a very strange day," he shared. "I remember we were having dinner in the evening, and I got tears in my eyes just watching us all having that final dinner together."

The next morning, the couple, their son, his wife and some of the duo's friends all went to a local hospice, where they were given lethal medication.

"We had two hours together, before the doctors came," shared their son. "We spoke about our memories. And we listened to music. The final half hour was difficult. The doctors arrived and everything happened quickly - they follow their routine, and then it's just a matter of minutes."

Loving, Loving and Dying Together is available now on BBC Sounds.

If you or someone you know is struggling with depression or has had thoughts of harming themselves or taking their own life, get help. The National Suicide Prevention Lifeline (1-800-273-8255) provides 24/7, free, confidential support for people in distress.

View post:

Married Couple In Their 70s Who First Met In Kindergarten Die Together from Duo-Euthanasia - TooFab

Posted in Euthanasia | Comments Off on Married Couple In Their 70s Who First Met In Kindergarten Die Together from Duo-Euthanasia – TooFab

Woman, 27, suffering chronic pain that can’t be cured explains why she wants to die by euthanasia – UNILAD

Posted: at 5:25 am

A woman living with a chronic condition that leaves her in constant pain has shared that she wishes to end her life via euthanasia.

Carolina Arruda from Brazil shared that she has plans to go to Switzerland to die by euthanasia as the practice is banned in her home country.

Carolina lives with a chronic condition which cannot be cured, and which means she has to live in excruciating pain.

The 27-year-old lives in Bambu in south-east Brazil, and was diagnosed with bilateral trigeminal neuralgia when she was just 16 years old.

This condition affects four out of 100,000 people in the world and causes extreme pain in patients.

The mom-of-one describes the pain as like being shocked on both sides of her face with 220 volts.

Bilateral trigeminal neuralgia affects the trigeminal nerve which carries signals between the brain and the face.

Simple everyday actions such as brushing your teeth, chewing, drinking, and sneezing can cause agonising pain for patients.

Describing the condition, Carolina told CNN: "Imagine a pain that makes it impossible to speak, smile, eat. It's the simplest things that this pain limits and incapacitates me in a way that I can't describe."

She added: "There are times when all I can do is lie down and curl up in a corner and wait for this pain to go away, but it never really goes away. I live with this pain 24 hours a day."

Carolina has explored a lot of other options before making her heartbreaking decision.

Explaining, she said: "I tried several pharmacological treatments, from conventional medications to more experimental options.

"I invested time, money and an immense amount of energy in the search for anything that could alleviate my pain."

Tragically, these were not enough to improve the condition.

Carolina said: "Every day, I tried to find meaning, to find hope, but the pain was always there, without stopping.

"It's not a lack of love for life or for the people around me, it's simply a cry for compassion, for a dignified end, you know?"

Ultimately, she has made the decision to travel to Switzerland to die, where euthanasia is legal.

She said: "The decision to have euthanasia was the hardest decision and, at the same time, the clearest for me.

"Even with the support of my family, and all the possibilities for a happy life, the constant pain turned my life into a real torment."

Go here to read the rest:

Woman, 27, suffering chronic pain that can't be cured explains why she wants to die by euthanasia - UNILAD

Posted in Euthanasia | Comments Off on Woman, 27, suffering chronic pain that can’t be cured explains why she wants to die by euthanasia – UNILAD

Euthanasia At Stake in British Elections – FSSPX.News

Posted: at 5:25 am

Assisted deathas it is now called in England, Le Monde points outis punishable with penalties of up to 14 years in prison, Carenotes. But the most recent directives, issued in 2010 by the judicial authority, encourage leniency when the act is carried out through compassion.

As in France, death in white gloves has its influencers, sufficiently present in the British media to attempt to sway public opinion: thus Le Monde notes, [Dame] Esther Rantzen, 83 years old, a well-known television figure across the Channel, broadcaster at the BBC for more than 20 years, announces that she is suffering from advanced stage lung cancer, and pleads for the legalization of euthanasia.

On the other side, the paralympic champion Tanni Grey-Thompson, now a member of the House of Lords, denounces a false right to die which hides a duty to die, exerted consciously or not over handicapped or seriously ill people, pressured to end it all in order not to become a supposed burden on society any longer, Le Mondenotes. She and others call instead for means of palliative care.

But the state of public opinion has changed in the British Isles: according to an Ipsos poll dating from 2023, two thirds of people asked in the United Kingdom said they were in favor of assisted death for terminally ill adults who ask for it, the same newspaper reports. In this context, the two main partiesthe Conservatives (Tories) and the Workers (Labour Party)are treading carefully.

The outgoing Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, who is struggling in the polls, is now declaring himself not opposed to a change in the law on euthanasia, assuring that, if reelected, he would organize a vote on the decriminalization of assisted suicide in order to regulate the practice, Carenotes.

His main opponent, Labour candidate Keir Starmer, is attempting to smooth out his image in order to become less divisive for conservatives: even if he does not hide his desire to legalize euthanasia, the Labour party leader promised that he would allow his representatives to vote freely by conscience, according to Le Monde.

The same newspaper recalls that in 2015, Mr. Starmer had voted in favor of assisted death when a first bill submitted by Baroness Molly Meacher, a member of the House of Lords, had been voted on in Parliament. The text had been rejected by a large majority.

A third man has entered the race to 10 Downing Street: Brexiter Nigel Farage, now leader of the Reform UK party, is shaking up the electoral campaign in preparation for the general elections on July 4. The conservatives have sown such chaos! he accuses.

While some polls put him in second place behind the Labour candidate, Nigel Farage, even if he is discreet on questions of the right to life, he is far from making the liberalization of euthanasia the heart of his campaign.

For their part, the Catholic bishops of the United Kingdom are calling on voters to take this issue into account when they exercise their right to vote on July 4, 2024: in a Statement on the General Election from Bishop Mark Davies published by the Diocese of Shrewsbury, the Bishop insists: I write to draw your attention to one of these choices in 2024 which involves euthanasia [...] At least one party leader has indicated that he will proactively make parliamentary time available for a change in the law to be considered that will remove many of the legal safeguards which have long protected some of the most vulnerable members of our society. Amid the many questions of policy being considered in the weeks ahead, this must surely be a central issue. [...]

I appeal to Catholics to mobilise. Dont be persuaded by emotional pitches in the media. Speak out against this sinister proposal. He recalls that Death is notpain relief; it is the transition to a glorious new life in heaven with God our Father and Creator. At least, if one dies in the state of grace.

View original post here:

Euthanasia At Stake in British Elections - FSSPX.News

Posted in Euthanasia | Comments Off on Euthanasia At Stake in British Elections – FSSPX.News

Dutch court punishes the selling of euthanasia drugs – CNE.news

Posted: at 5:25 am

The court in the Dutch city of Arnhem imposed penalties for selling suicide powders on Thursday. This means that suicide drugs cannot be seen as a legitimate means for "private" euthanasia or assisted suicide.

Two leaders of the Last Will Cooperation have been given prison sentences for providing the lethal drug called X to people. The highest punishment was a one-year suspended prison sentence. Other sentences were 80 hours of community service.

According to the court in Arnhem, the 74-year-old leader of the Last Will Cooperation distributed at least a thousand doses, and possibly more, with all future risks, according to the Dutch press agency ANP.

Those drugs were bought by people who wanted to end their lives and, in some cases, did. Among them were vulnerable, relatively young people whose death wish does not appear to have been enduring, the judge said.

The judge also mentioned the suffering of bereaved families. For example, a womans death wish caused her to become distant from her daughter, who, therefore, could not be with her in the final phase of her life.

The two sentences were significantly lower than what the public prosecutor had demanded. Four other suspects were acquitted. The court did not rule on a seventh suspect because he recently died, so the case against him was dropped. All the suspects were older than 70.

The supplier of the lethal drug was Alex S. (31) from Eindhoven. He was sentenced last year to 3.5 years in prison (of which 1.5 years suspended). His case is still on appeal.

The criminal case served in April and had seven defendants at the time. One of the suspects subsequently died at the age of 80. The case against him lapsed as a result. The prosecution had also demanded 2.5 years in prison against him, one year of which was suspended.

The defendants wanted people to be able to decide on their own death. The court spoke of a group of people in whom the ideal of autonomy was paramount; they were not people who acted on death, according to the judge. The case has a lot of political idealism, although it is idealism and ideology around life and death.

In the square in front of the court, a group of people demonstrated in support of the defendants. The reading of the verdict was disturbed several times by sirens and shouting with a megaphone.

Relatives of several people who died after using drug X are baffled by the low sentences given to two people for supplying that suicide drug. They think the court in Arnhem let the suspects get away with it, according to their lawyer, Sbas Diekstra.

See more here:

Dutch court punishes the selling of euthanasia drugs - CNE.news

Posted in Euthanasia | Comments Off on Dutch court punishes the selling of euthanasia drugs – CNE.news

Wake County Animal Center is dangerously close to euthanasia for space – Restoration NewsMedia – Restoration NewsMedia

Posted: at 5:25 am

The Wake County Animal Center is seeking people to adopt pets. | Contributed photo

Wake County Animal Center has reached full capacity once again and urgently needs community support through pet adoptions.

After taking in 141 animals over the last three days, there are only two cat kennels and five dog kennels left in the building. Without immediate intervention, the center will have to start euthanizing for space.

The center has an eight-year record of not euthanizing animals for space, but the number of petsin our care has surged beyond our capacity, said Wake County Commissioner Cheryl Stallings. We are asking for the communitys help to provide these wonderful animals with loving homes and help us keep our record. Every adoption can make a significant difference.

Currently, there are 635 animals at the center and in foster care taking up kennels and life-saving space, leaving no room for incoming animals. There are 65 cats, 100 kittens, 159 dogs, 11 puppies, 11 rabbits, nine birds and one goat at the Center. Another 18 cats, 195 kittens, 61 dogs, four puppies and one rabbit are in foster care.

The center has had to divide the kennels small, enclosed spaces where animals are kept for care and shelter to accommodate two pets, but even this option is no longer sufficient as the number of animals has increased. When the kennels are divided, there is a risk of spreading diseases, especially for young animals and those recently admitted.

The situation is dire, said Dr. Jennifer Federico, director of the Wake County Animal Center. Our community needs to find ways to keep pets at home or rehome them. With the current influx, we simply cannot keep up with the speed. Every day, more animals are coming in than leaving the center.

To encourage adoptions, the Wake County Animal Center will be waiving all adoption fees to $0 for dogs, cats and small animals from June 28 through July 7, for all animals available for adoption.

When you adopt a pet from the Wake County Animal Center, they are spayed/neutered, microchipped, and up to date on their annual vaccines, which saves you on veterinary bills.

Read more here:

Wake County Animal Center is dangerously close to euthanasia for space - Restoration NewsMedia - Restoration NewsMedia

Posted in Euthanasia | Comments Off on Wake County Animal Center is dangerously close to euthanasia for space – Restoration NewsMedia – Restoration NewsMedia

Heartbreaking reason why couple happily married for almost 50 years decided to be euthanised together – LADbible

Posted: at 5:25 am

Warning: This article contains discussion of assisted dying that some readers may find distressing.

A couple chose to be euthanised together after nearly 50 years of happy marriage.

Jan Faber, 70, and Els van Leeningen, 71, opted to die together by duo-euthanasia - a very rare, but legal way of choosing to end your life, which is slowly becoming more popular in the Netherlands.

The couple had a life-long partnership, having met in their early years at school before going on to marry and welcome a son.

Jan and Els lived the majority of their life on boats and in their final years, in a motorhome.

Initially, Els trained as a primary school teacher while Jan was a sports coach, but then the couple decided to build a business transporting goods around the Netherlands inland waterways.

Jan developed serious back pain due to the heavy-lifting involved in his job, and despite having surgery on his back in 2003, his condition didn't improve.

This sparked a conversation about euthanasia between himself and his wife, and they found themselves joining NVVE the Netherlands 'right to die' organisation.

If you take a lot of medicine, you live like a zombie, Jan told the BBC. So, with the pain I have, and Els illness, I think we have to stop this.

Els retired from teaching in 2018 and was showing early signs of dementia.

In November 2022, she was formally diagnosed with the disease, and later learned her condition would not improve.

Jan and Els, along with their son, began discussing duo-euthanasia, as they both continued to struggle with their health.

"Ive lived my life, I dont want pain anymore, Jan said. The life weve lived, were getting old [for it]. We think it has to be stopped.

It was noted that if Els' condition worsened, she may not be considered to have the capacity to decide for herself that she wants to die.

The couple made the decision to be euthanised with the support of their loved ones and spent their final day surrounded by their family and best friends.

Jan and Els, along with their loved ones, went to the local hospice the following day and spent two hours together talking and listening to music before doctors came.

The final half hour was difficult, the couple's son, who asked not to be named, said. The doctors arrived and everything happened quickly - they follow their routine, and then its just a matter of minutes.

Els and Jan were administered lethal medication by doctors and died together on Monday 3 June 2024.

If youve been affected by any of these issues and want to speak to someone in confidence, please dont suffer alone. Call Samaritans for free on their anonymous 24-hour phone line on 116 123.

Read the original here:

Heartbreaking reason why couple happily married for almost 50 years decided to be euthanised together - LADbible

Posted in Euthanasia | Comments Off on Heartbreaking reason why couple happily married for almost 50 years decided to be euthanised together – LADbible

Meghan Trainors Timeless is full of empowering tracks – YP

Posted: at 5:25 am

Pop sensation Meghan Trainor is again making waves with her latest album, Timeless. Released on June 7, the 16-track collection features collaborations with T-Pain and Niecy Nash-Betts. It explores the themes that have become hallmarks of Trainors music: self-empowerment, mental health and self-care, and female empowerment.

The message of female self-empowerment is highlighted in the track I Wanna Thank Me, featuring Niecy Nash-Betts. Reflecting on her inspiration for the track with MNPR magazine Nash-Betts Emmy awards acceptance speech earlier this year Trainor shared, I think we often forget to take time to appreciate the hard work weve done when I heard Niecys speech at the Emmys, I was so moved and so inspired. I knew I had to write a song about it.

This self-love anthem serves as a powerful reminder to listeners that our mental well-being should come first, especially in a society obsessed with popularity and social status. Trainors self-love anthem borrows a few phrases from Nash-Betts speech: You know who I wanna thank? Me, for believing in me and doing what they said I could not do.

Throughout the album, Trainor explores a feminist perspective on dating and emotional disconnection in relationships, particularly focusing on male behaviour and its impact. This is evident in the song Forget How to Love, such as when she sings, All you do is make me feel unworthy, highlighting the effect that neglect and emotional distance in a relationship can have on a person.

This could be interpreted as her call to partners to be more emotionally present and supportive of their loved ones. As a listener, the perspective of this song was very refreshing and gave insight into Trainors personal views.

This idea of societal double standards is further explored in Rollin, which delves into the contrasting expectations placed on men and women in society and critiques men for their misogynistic attitudes. In the song, Trainor comments on how her eyes roll when she encounters another day, another man tryna mansplain something. She encourages women to stand up for themselves in the face of adversity, as seen in the line, This ones for the girls out there with opinions.

Guts (spilled) review: Olivia Rodrigos bonus tracks elevate the Grammy winners original album

Timeless offers an introspective look into Meghan Trainors life and her observations on societal pressures and expectations. The album highlights the impact of misogyny and aims to inspire future generations to embrace their voices and challenge societal norms.

Through her empowering anthems, Trainor encourages women to stand up for themselves, speak out against sexism, and be true to who they are. The recurring themes of emotional disconnection and the call for mutual respect in relationships underscore Trainors message of empowerment and the importance of emotional intimacy and attentiveness.

Sign up for the YP Teachers Newsletter

Get updates for teachers sent directly to your inbox

Original post:

Meghan Trainors Timeless is full of empowering tracks - YP

Posted in Personal Empowerment | Comments Off on Meghan Trainors Timeless is full of empowering tracks – YP

Opinion | The First Amendment Is Out of Control – The New York Times

Posted: at 5:24 am

The First Amendment was written in the 18th century with the noble and vitally important goal of ensuring robust political debate and a free press. For much of American history, First Amendment cases involving speech typically concerned political dissenters, religious outcasts, intrepid journalists and others whose ability to express their views was threatened by a powerful and sometimes overbearing state. The First Amendment was a tool that helped the underdog.

But sometime in this century the judiciary lost the plot. Judges have transmuted a constitutional provision meant to protect unpopular opinion into an all-purpose tool of legislative nullification that now mostly protects corporate interests. Nearly any law that has to do with the movement of information can be attacked in the name of the First Amendment.

Mondays Supreme Court decision in the two NetChoice cases greatly adds to the problem. The cases concern two state laws, one in Florida and one in Texas, that limit the ability of social media platforms to remove or moderate content. (Both laws were enacted in response to the perceived censorship of political conservatives.) While the Supreme Court remanded both cases to lower courts for further factual development, the court nonetheless went out of its way to state that the millions of algorithmic decisions made every day by social media platforms are protected by the First Amendment. It did so by blithely assuming that those algorithmic decisions are equivalent to the expressive decisions made by human editors at newspapers.

Even if one has concerns about the wisdom and questionable constitutionality of the Florida and Texas laws (as I do), the breadth of the courts reasoning should serve as a wake-up call. The judiciary needs to realize that the First Amendment is spinning out of control. It is beginning to threaten many of the essential jobs of the state, such as protecting national security and the safety and privacy of its citizens.

How did we get here? The reach of the First Amendment started to expand in the 1960s and 70s, when the Supreme Court issued a series of rulings that held that the First Amendment concerned not just political and religious speech but also other forms of expression (such as sexual content) and commercial communication (such as advertisements). These initial changes to the scope of the First Amendment were reasonable.

Over the past decade or two, however, liberal as well as conservative judges and justices have extended the First Amendment to protect nearly anything that can be called speech, regardless of its value or whether the speaker is a human or a corporation. It has come to protect corporate donations to political campaigns (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010), the buying and tracking of data (Sorrell v. IMS Health in 2011), even outright lies (United States v. Alvarez in 2012). As a result, it has become harder for the government to protect its citizens.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit andlog intoyour Times account, orsubscribefor all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?Log in.

Want all of The Times?Subscribe.

See the article here:
Opinion | The First Amendment Is Out of Control - The New York Times

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on Opinion | The First Amendment Is Out of Control – The New York Times

The New York Times is wrong to attack the First Amendment – UnHerd

Posted: at 5:24 am

Those of us who defend freedom of speech have unfortunately become used to hysterical headlines from the New York Times decrying the problem of the First Amendment.

Some of these headlines rely on straw man arguments to make their case, such as Free Speech Is Killing Us by Andrew Marantz in 2019. And who could forget Ulrich Baers 2017 article, What Snowflakes Get Right About Free Speech, which argued that people who agree with him should have more control over speech on campus? (Perhaps the least surprising position a university administrator has ever taken.) Or Lisa Feldman Barretts 2017 article, When Is Speech Violence?, which argues that speech can become violence when its stressful? If thats the case, then whats the First Amendment for?

Professor Tim Wus piece this week, The First Amendment Is Out of Control, was in this troubling tradition of free-speech catastrophising. As he notes at the beginning of the article, [n]early any law that has to do with the movement of information can be attacked in the name of the First Amendment. Well, sure. Fear of government power over the free flow of information was a big part of the reason why Congress shall make no law.

See the article here:
The New York Times is wrong to attack the First Amendment - UnHerd

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on The New York Times is wrong to attack the First Amendment – UnHerd

The Supreme Court’s Reasoning Prohibits the Deplatforming that the Parties Care About – Reason

Posted: at 5:24 am

As the Moody v. NetChoice majority noted, the parties focused on Facebook's and YouTube's main feeds. The majority similarly focused on those main feeds in its extensive discussion of First Amendment principles, and, as co-blogger Ilya notes, it left little doubt about the unconstitutionality of the Texas and Florida statutes as applied to them. NetChoice didn't invalidate the laws on their face because of uncertainty about how the statutes apply to other services that were barely discussed (if at all) in the briefing below.

The article that co-blogger Eugene links to in his 12:19pm post today made probably the strongest argument in favor of the Texas and Florida laws at issue in NetChoice (and both states' lawyers cited Eugene's article in their oral arguments): that platforms can be treated like common carriers such that the regulation of the hosting of users does not implicate the First Amendment. The Alito opinion (concurring in the decision to remand but rejecting the majority's application of the First Amendment to the statutes as issue) largely agreed with Eugene's reasoning, but the majority did not.

Eugene says that "the majority did not decide whether the First Amendment extends to platforms' many other functionssuch as platforms' decisions whether to 'deplatform' users in a way that keeps readers from seeing the user's posts even when they deliberately seek out those posts," and I think that's correct for platforms other than the curated ones like Facebook's and YouTube's main feeds. I could easily imagine that the Court might find that some platform like Gmail cannot deplatform anyone based on their viewpoint, on the theory that Gmail does not engage in expression for First Amendment purposes. But Texas and Florida did not enact these statutes to quash Gmail's exclusion of users based on their viewpoint.

Is there any argument that under NetChoice regulating the exclusion (i.e., deplatforming) of users from the kinds of main feeds that the majority focused on does not implicate the First Amendment? I don't think so. The passages that Ilya quotes (and many other passages like it in the opinion) are very clear about the application of the First Amendment to these platforms. Beyond that, the logic of applying the First Amendment to the exclusion of messages (which the majority clearly does) also applies to the exclusion of users. A platform can exclude pro-KKK messages as part of its own communication that it abhors those messages. Similarly, excluding the KKK as a group, or the Grand Wizard of the KKK as a person, such that their posts cannot be seen by other users, would communicate that it wants nothing to do with the KKK. As the majority stated,

Suppose, for example, that the newspaper in Tornillo had granted a right of reply to all but one candidate. It would have made no difference; the Florida [right-of-reply] statute still could not have altered the paper's policy.

As the majority noted, the platforms rely on algorithms to implement their exclusion standards. A decision to implement an algorithm excluding all messages relating to the KKK (or the Kentucky Derby) would be covered by the First Amendment. And if one of the ways they chose to implement that exclusion was to exclude all messages from the Grand Wizard of the KKK, or the Kentucky Derby organization, they are still making an editorial decision that constitutes speech for First Amendment purposes. We might object that their decision excludes more speech than we would like (what's wrong with the Kentucky Derby?), just as we might object to the decisions made by the parade organizers in Hurley or the newspaper in Tornillo. But that doesn't change the fact that they are communicating by doing so.

Anyway, I'm guessing Eugene and I will discuss this at the upcoming online symposium on these cases. See below to sign up for what passes for fireworks among law professors.

Link:
The Supreme Court's Reasoning Prohibits the Deplatforming that the Parties Care About - Reason

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on The Supreme Court’s Reasoning Prohibits the Deplatforming that the Parties Care About – Reason