see section 4 my good sir, also, we luckily got JRC to decide this 
1 Like
1 Like
well, it legit says it won’t affect your own opinion or freedom of speech so 
1 Like
Semi-unconstitutional and can already be covered under terrorism. Any group who seeks to suppress and harm the citizens and people’s of Firestone.
2 Likes
From a purely legal standpoint, I can see it going through. Our free speech is definitely limited by the TOS-so obviously Nazism, Marxism, and the likes go out the window real damn quick. Anarchism violates the Constitution in its entirety, so it goes out. And pretty much all of the banned ideologies have allowed the murder of millions. Nevertheless, the biggest challenges would be the bans on oligarchies and aristocracies. From a technical standpoint, is Congress not an oligarchy? Sure it’s not the ultimate ruling force, but they can change the law to anything they so want at any given time. And under our constitution, an aristocratic System is unconstitutional, but that wouldn’t be too hard to change. It really comes down to the SC in this one
3 Likes
The restriction of the expression of speech, regardless of how little we may agree with said speech, is the most dangerous thing to any state.
To quote Evelyn Beatrice Hall, “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”
Skye Jones
Speaker of the House
1 Like
hello, senator tony here
with this, i think its very pointless. i will still shoot escaped inmates or ones who attempt to under section 5 of my bill, A Bill to Protect the Restricted Areas
2 Likes
Congress is too dumb to know that.
I personally disagree with the shoot criminals on sight thing IRL, but it’s American policy and realistic to America. Also, boi just kill em, they pose a ‘threat’ or whatever
2 Likes