Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2026 Poal.co

644

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (6).
[–] • 1 pt

Well, sort of a positive move.

Towards the end of the article, it explains that they ruled against it because there are currently loopholes that have to be fixed.

But it shouldn't even be up for discussion, as it goes directly against the 1st Amendment.

[–] • 1 pt

I'll take what I can get....