My mother died of metastatic breast cancer three months ago. I inherited the pink mastectomy pillow given to her by members of a well-meaning breast cancer support group. She hated that pillow and preferred the THC-infused lemon candy I had slipped into her palliative care room. I can`t say for sure that I would find it any less angry if it were a different shade, but I was tempted to scribble „My mom had breast cancer and all I got was that ugly pink pillow” and tie it to my chest when I attended a fundraiser for breast cancer research this year. President Trump addressed the nation itself or the American people, who were once the „leaders of this nation,” but whose authority has been usurped by a ruling class. He didn`t use the latter term, but hinted at it by juxtaposing America`s forgotten ones with the „small group in our nation`s capital” that runs the show and thrives. Lord. Trump`s victory means the overthrow of this „establishment,” he said, and the triumph of the „historic movement” that brought him to power and returned control of his own government to the people. Of course, as he knows, winning a battle, even a decisive one, is not the same as winning the war.
The populist tone of a man who lost the popular vote — the day the people became the leader of this nation again — would have been welcome if Trump hadn`t brought a cabinet of the very rich and elite, a ball of predators, to Washington. Among them is a Treasury Department candidate whose bank has excluded some of Trump`s claims to speak. And a worker chooses who doesn`t believe fast food workers should earn a living wage. The nationalist tone of „Buy American and hire American” would also be welcome if Trump hadn`t done the opposite to enrich himself over the years, from using Chinese steel in his Las Vegas hotels to employing foreign workers for his properties in Florida. 86, 88 (1923). This proposal would circumvent this obstacle by turning criticism of the government, however impersonal it may seem at first glance, into personal criticism and thus potential defamation of the public servants who make up the government. There is no legal alchemy by which a State could thus create a cause of action which would otherwise be denied for a publication which, as the defendant himself said in relation to the complaint, `reflects not only on me, but also on the other Commissioners and the Community`. Because it raises the possibility that a bona fide critic of the government could be punished for their critics, the proposal invoked by Alabama courts goes to the very heart of the constitutionally protected area of free speech. [Footnote 30] We believe that such a proposal should not be used constitutionally to establish that an otherwise impersonal attack on government operations was a defamation of a public servant responsible for those operations. Given that they were used exclusively in this case and that there was no other evidence to establish a link between the statements and the respondent, the evidence was constitutionally insufficient to support the conclusion that the statements concerned the respondent.
Authoritative interpretations of First Amendment guarantees have consistently refused to recognize an exception to any truth test — whether conducted by judges, jurors, or administrative officials — and in particular one that places the burden of proving truth on the speaker. Cf. Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. pp. 513, 357 U. pp. 525-526. Constitutional protection does not refer to „the truth, popularity or social benefit of the ideas and beliefs offered.” NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415, 371 U.
S. 445. As Madison put it, „a certain degree of abuse is inseparable from the correct use of everything, and in no case is this truer than that of the press.” 4 Elliot`s Debates on the Federal Constitution (1876), 571. In Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. p. 296, 310 U. p. 310, the court stated: The rating agencies have downgraded the Russian government to junk status. And the list of private and international companies leaving Russia is growing by the day. However, I want to be clear: we will ensure that Ukraine has the necessary weapons to defend itself against the invasion of Russian forces. (Applause) And we will send money and food aid to save Euro-Ukrainian lives.
We will welcome Ukrainian refugees with open arms if they come here. (Applause) And as we support Ukraine, we will continue to stand with our allies in Europe and send an unequivocal message that we will defend every inch of NATO territory – every inch – with a united and galvanized NATO.