As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click here to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
"Lies uttered to obtain consent to enter the premises of an agricultural facility are not protected speech," (the dissenting judge) wrote.
I wonder if this guy would be fine with the lies Project Veritas participants throw around to get access to for their (edited and out-of-context) information?
The dissent is telling of the enshrined "rules for thee, not for me" duality in U.S. society when U.S. Circuit Judge Harris Hartz wrote "Lies uttered to obtain consent to enter the premises of an agricultural facility are not protected speech,".
Law enforcement in contrast is allowed to and will lie to you to extract a confession and/or enter your premises. "Anything you say will be used against you in the court of law."
This is why I teach my children to be respectful to, but under no circumstances ever talk, to the police.