No. It's more nuanced. The ruling implies expression which can be interpreted by courts as incitement is not protected. This is common in Europe and is part of the WWII legacy. I disagree but it isn't really precedent setting in my opinion.
-
-
-
Thanks for the clarification. I still disagree, but it's important to note the judicial flexibility.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
GOP seem to be good at branding their lies as real and criticism as attacks and also now they have a judge.pic.twitter.com/tCWRVIgkw8
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.