Major Win For Our RTR;s

[JoS Forum Contributions]

Major Win For Our RTR;s
The Yehuborim attempt to turn America into a totalitarian state in which Yehuborim and only the Yehuborim decide what is  acceptable. Which means the Goyim have no rights as they are not considered human in the Yehuborim Torah and Talmud, Kabala. Which is why the Yehuborim run Soviet nations the people had literally no rights .Because only Yehuborim are People and the Yehuborim lived in total wealth, power and privilege when the Goyim were literal slaves to the Yehuborim. It was like living under Orwell's 1984. Remember Palestinians are what it looks like when Yehuborim have total power over the Goyim.
What do the Yehuborim decide as law in the Soviet regime.... The first law the Communist Yehuborim leaders passed was the Anti-Semitism Act, Which criminalized thoughts the  Yehuborim don't like and punished it with capital punishment. 
Note the Communist Yehuborim made owning The Proctors of Zion the death penalty. Because they are totally fake....The one Russian who published them was executed by the Yehuborim Bolsheviks for such.
The original Protocols were demanded authentic as well by Russian scholars in the 90's when they had the freedom to examine them. The Pavel edition from 1903. Not the Nilus edition. Which was based off the Pavel edition but altered to conform to his Xian bias which involved removing all the Torah and Talmudic quotations within them and adding stuff about Darwinism and Nietzsche.  The Yehuborim still executed Nilus.
The original Protocols came from the agents of the Yehubor conferences happening within the Russian Empire during an anti-Yehuborim riot their lavish homes were ransacked and the documents discovered.
--------------------------------------------------Article
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... amendment/
From today’s opinion by Justice Samuel Alito (for four justices) in Matal v. Tam, the “Slants” case:

[The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote separately, also for four justices, but on this point the opinions agreed:

A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an “egregious form of content discrimination,” which is “presumptively unconstitutional.” … A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.

And the justices made clear that speech that some view as racially offensive is protected not just against outright prohibition but also against lesser restrictions. In Matal, the government refused to register “The Slants” as a band’s trademark, on the ground that the name might be seen as demeaning to Asian Americans. The government wasn’t trying to forbid the band from using the mark; it was just denying it certain protections that trademarks get against unauthorized use by third parties. But even in this sort of program, the court held, viewpoint discrimination — including against allegedly racially offensive viewpoints — is unconstitutional. And this no-viewpoint-discrimination principle has long been seen as applying to exclusion of speakers from universities, denial of tax exemptions to nonprofits, and much more.