Case Filing: Atlasia v. Jesus

[opebo]

I would be happy to 'oversee' this case, but I would also prefer that we The Court not take it, as it is patently spurious.  What is the legal term for that?

[opebo]

Why is it "patently spurious", opebo?

I am required to give a reason?  Well, what I was getting at is that it is frivolous - I can't think of the legal term for such cases, but are they not generally thrown out preemptorily? 

But aside from that the laws mentioned are unconstitutional.

[opebo]

Why is it "patently spurious", opebo?

I am required to give a reason?  Well, what I was getting at is that it is frivolous - I can't think of the legal term for such cases, but are they not generally thrown out preemptorily? 

But aside from that the laws mentioned are unconstitutional.

I'd think you'd support it being a tolerate person as Jesus (religious name) called dazzleman a pedophile for saying Rin-chan was attractive.

You aren't living up to your own stereotype, opebo.

I'm sorry councillor you're going to have to restate that, as it made no sense.  What is a 'tolerate person'?  Just because it is acceptable to use ajectives as nouns does not make it acceptable - at least in my courtroom - to use verbs as adjectives.  Harrumph!

[opebo]

I'd think you'd support it being a tolerant person as Jesus (religious name) called dazzleman a pedophile for saying Rin-chan was attractive.

Still doesn't make any sense.  While I support pedophilia, I also support free speech, and anyway thusly, it was a compliment.

[opebo]

I'd think you'd support it being a tolerant person as Jesus (religious name) called dazzleman a pedophile for saying Rin-chan was attractive.

Still doesn't make any sense.  While I support pedophilia, I also support free speech, and anyway thusly, it was a compliment.

Interesting position as usual.  I must ask opebo, what part of the constitution does the law in question violate?

My interpretation, you impertinent.

[opebo]

Why is it "patently spurious", opebo?

I am required to give a reason?  Well, what I was getting at is that it is frivolous - I can't think of the legal term for such cases, but are they not generally thrown out preemptorily? 

But aside from that the laws mentioned are unconstitutional.

How are the laws unconstitutional?  I don't see how this has anything to do with free speech, especially since I suspect the standard of review would be lower for the government to prove concerning edits to personal webpages about Atlasian members.

Jesus is being persecuted for two varieties of speech, SS.  How can this not be about freedom of speech?