You’d think a law professor would actually know how free speech works but maybe getting a blue check from Twitter breaks something in the person’s brain? Dr. Mary Anne Franks tweeted this ‘masterpiece’ after the Amber Heard verdict.
Maybe this is where Amber got the bright idea that her freedom of speech had been limited? It’s hard to tell who out-dumbed who sometimes on Twitter:
Free speech, except for women.
— Dr. Mary Anne Franks (@ma_franks) June 1, 2022
And JUST like Amber, she limited replies to her tweet.
Talk about an irony to end all ironies.
The government didn’t limit Amber’s speech, doc.
Defamation is not covered under the first amendment…
— ♔donnalee (@cali_reddhead) June 1, 2022
Gosh, who’da thunk it?
Oh, that’s right, anyone with a brain in their head (and minus that precious blue check, apparently).
Is your argument that the First Amendment should protect defamation with malicious intent?
— Amerigo Chattin (@AmerigoChattin) June 1, 2022
We’re not entirely sure what her argument really is.
Maybe she’s trying to claim women should be able to defame people?
Anything is possible …
Lmao sorry when did the gvt censor Amber again???
— 🖤 (@kkisses13) June 1, 2022
THAT ONE TIME.
Depp is just that powerful!
The government did not censor her. She has a right to defame someone, but should be ready for the civil repercussions that follow.
— The Costumbrist (@Costumbrist) June 1, 2022
Ding ding ding.
This is not difficult.
You have to take victims claims seriously no matter what BUT you also have to realize that the MeToo movement is for everyone. I'm an autistic guy and was physically/emotionally abused by an ex. I still have the scars to prove it. I never fought back. Can I not speak? https://t.co/uQMwfgb0NH
— Action Potential (@TCR_BCR) June 2, 2022
That’s the bigger piece here, proving that women can also be abusers.
But you know, free speech or something.
To change your comments display name, click here.