Naw, if offensive or rude speech is protected, if the defendant has been asked what they plead, for example, and they say “not guilty, mister Hitler”, that should be fully protected.

I never said anything about speaking out of turn or disrupting proceedings with outbursts.

Judges, and you’d know this if you’d been an officer of the courts or spent any amount of time in court rooms, regularly use contempt as punishment for when someone is rude to them, even if it’s within their allowed moment of response during the process.

Edit: ahh, downvoted for saying something you dislike, eh? I imagine you’d love to have me thrown in jail for that, censorious individual that you are.

Luckily I acknowledge your right to downvote as speech. A favor I’m sure you wouldn’t return.

That’s ostensibly what it’s for, but judges routinely use it as a cudgel for what they deem offensive or inappropriate speech, especially when directed at them, even if only done in moments where those in court are allowed to speak.

They have the latitude to use it in practically any manner they want, and they routinely use it specifically to coerce decorum.

I mean, if you want to entirely miss the point of the previous comment in favor of pedantry, feel free, but the same principle that first amendment rights are sacrosanct, even if rude or offensive, should obviously apply to courts as well.

Judges routinely use contempt of court as bludgeon to coerce decorum, because offending their delicate sensibilities, or gods forfend, impugning their character, is such a slight on their dignity that the hammer of the state must be used to prevent it.

Judges are babies, which is why they’d never allow this in court. Any legal argument as to why that’s acceptable is just post facto justification as to why their paper thin feelings are more important than rights.

“We have successfully applied flame stickers to the side of the quantum computer, increasing its speed by up to 300%”

Tim Heidecker has spoken about him being a big influences bunch of time, even at length in some academic settings lol

He was a troll. Either you were in on the joke or you were the joke. Most people were not in on the joke even at the time. Often, he was the only one in on the joke. Sometimes there was no joke, which was the joke.

Pinker is a charlatan and an embarrassment, albeit an extremely popular one.

It costs them nothing to convey a popular message while conceding nothing beyond words. Because that’s all it is. Words. They haven’t been “conquered” any more than I’ve conquered my bank when they tell me they appreciate my business.

Some within the company my see it as a cynical opportunity to garner good PR. Others may truly believe the message. The fact is the reasoning is wholly immaterial as it has no actual impact on real world outcomes either way.

The same goes for politicians. Plenty of them mouth the pieties expected by their base, while taking actions diametrically opposed to those pieties. Only a rube takes their words at face value.