Election Meme Master ACQUITTED after Biden Conviction REVERSED! (CORRUPT PROSECUTORS CRUSHED!!)
California SUED in DOJ Lawsuit to ENFORCE Laws Protecting Girls! (THIS MUST STOP!!)
Biden’s Doctor PLEADS THE FIFTH! (WHY SO SILENT??)
Here’s more from Robert Gouveia on Watching The Watchers.
Meme maker Douglas Mackey of West Palm Beach, Florida, could face up to 10 years in jail for allegedly suppressing votes for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election. Mackey, going under the pseudonym Ricky Vaughn, encouraged people to vote for Hillary by text messaging their choices rather than going to an authorized voting spot.
U.S. Attorney Breon Peace argued before New York City Judge Ann M. Donnelly that Mackey was trying to steal Clinton’s votes. The judge declined Mackey’s stand that the First Amendment protected his meme making. He faces sentencing on August 19, but Styxhexenhammer666 believes the case will eventually be thrown out after it’s appealed to a more moderate locale outside NYC.
After all, with Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg running footloose, New York City seems locked in a contest with its Far Left Coast rivals — Seattle, Portland and San Francisco — to determine which is the flakiest and most putrid shithole in America.
As if we haven’t had enough chaos on social media, news is surfacing that an “influencer” on Twitter has been arrested for a meme he created in the U.S. So are these charges bogus under the protection of the 1st Amendment or did he cross the line?
Douglas Massey, aka Douglas Mackey and Ricky Vaughn, has officially been arrested for memes he prepared in the context of the 2016 Presidential election on the basis that they interfered with the election process. Twitter subsequently suspended Mackey’s account, which had 58,000 followers, in addition to two more that he attempted create under different aliases. The complaint and affidavit in support of an arrest warrant only took issue with the memes where Massey was telling people to vote by text on social media on unlawful and invalid manners that would disenfranchise people of the right to vote if they would have voted that way.
Says Viva Frei’s David Freiheit, “The case really does highlight the distinction between free speech and protected speech. I’m an unapologetic believer in freedom of speech, but I do draw the line at certain types of speech, such as targeted harassment, death threats, doxing, etc.” Here’s more from Freitheit as he analyzes the complaint, with some help from colleague Nate the Lawyer.
