So providers shouldn't provide services to black people, because they make poor customers when you make then eat in the alley?

Or phone and electric were built to serve all, even in a particular customer was served for a loss, so why do you think that Internet is less of a fundamental service than electricity or roads or water or phone?

I'm confused. How does a computer help someone follow me around? The cost to follow a person loosely would be $50k minimum, more likely $150k. To follow a person more tightly (follow them if they know and are trying to lose you) is going to cost more than $1M per person followed per year. That's why the police loves it. They can track everyone in the area for one low cost.

Nope. Because it's impossible for a government to follow everyone. Because to have that many watchers would bankrupt the country. It would take $100k per year or more to follow me. So the theory doesn't matter because the reality is "no".

A non-combatant in a country you are at war with is not an enemy, and deliberately killing them is murder. Go take a look at the massacres of Vietnam and how those were treated at the time and as history.

Though, bombing a tank factory and killing a non-combatant janitor is not murder, as you targeted a military target and the death is collateral damage, not a murder. Dresden and the Tokyo bombings killed lots of civilians. Hiroshima was a military target, killing 20,000 Japanese troops. That there were 2 times that in dead civilians doesn't make it murder.

But Nagasaki was a terrorist target. It was smaller, and had only a token military presence. The targets were "civilian" facilities that were making war implements. The factory that made the primary torpedo used in Pearl Harbor was destroyed, as were other factories and metal works. But almost no military were killed. The point was to terrorize the Japanese into surrender. Hiroshima "should have" caused a surrender, which was given with unconscionable conditions. It was a mass killing of the main Japanese force assembled to repel an American invasion from the south. But the Japanese wouldn't give in. So Nagasaki was proof that any place left so far (mostly) untouched would be reduced to a parking lot before an American invasion would lose American lives fighting the Japanese on home soil. It may have been necessary to end the war and killed far fewer Japanese civilians than an invasion, but it was still not a military target.

Women, Children, and Adult Males. Interesting that not a single military person was killed. At least according to your re-statement.

Solenoid driven systems on GM cars from the '80s wouldn't engage under about 35 mph (could be higher or lower, based on the car, it was a mechanical system, not electronic). Modern purely-electronic systems will usually engage at any speed, though some will have a minimum speed. I haven't checked my 2010+ vehicles for cruise performance. It's a non-issue.

The limit is essentially 85 until corrected. So it doesn't matter what the car does, the effect is legal.

So words that startle should be illegal, and words that offend should be legal. Words that cause harm should be legal, if the harm is emotional.

Is that accurate for your stance?

I proposed no change. I just pointed out that you are mindlessly following society's inconsistent and illogical stance.

What harm does a water balloon that blows up on your roof (without a drop hitting a window or landing under your tires) do?

None, yet you find it illegal. Same as words. Only you find those legal. And you can't explain the difference. Got it.

Yup, that's how it works.

So your response is "nuh uh". You win with your logic.

I looked up the ones found unconstitutional, and they were all ruled unconstitutional for being vague. A noise ordinance that used dB levels and specific times should be fine. But "too loud, causes discomfort" or such would be too vague.

Noise ordinances are constitutional. Vague and confusing laws are unconstitutional. The problem is if most of the laws on #1 fit in category #2. It doesn't mean anything about #1, other than lawmakers are dumb.

"fighting words" and "incitement" are illegal acts in many places, and there's a fine line for what are illegal words.