I'll try to find a better way to explain it, perhaps with some kind of pseudo-machine-language to show how the compiler/interpreter processes stuff.

If you surveyed how many citizens would support law against hate speech, it would probably be a significant number. And prospective citizens as well. So I don't think the problem with your proposal has anything to do with people in favor of shari'a law. It would not work with plain Judeo-Christian European European-descended folks.

OK. The folks who run Project Shield have been informed!

I've met Godwin and he'd be horrified that you are trying to shield Trump by invoking his name. The world doesn't need an automatic method to suppress discussion of atrocities, and Mike never meant what he said to be one. In fact, this is a quote of Mike directly:

If you're thoughtful about it and show some real awareness of history, go ahead and refer to Hitler or Nazis when you talk about Trump. Or any other politician.

There's also Google's Project Shield, which is free for journalists.

That's a really good point. This service sure isn't going to throw someone off for being attacked too much. I'll ask someone at Google to expedite the process.

By the way, I've sworn to much the same text in my police deputy's oath. I volunteer for disaster services. It didn't limit me from opposing any law, I just have to follow them while they are still on the books.

Your next move, should you choose to make it, is to decry that if we actually had standards for citizenship (like every other goddamn country on Earth) we'd have to kick out all existing citizens that don't meet those standards, which is ludicrous. No one handles birthright citizenship the same way they handle citizenship through naturalization, and the lack of options for stateless citizens makes that idea cruel and untenable.

With all due respect, you're talking to yourself now. I wasn't thinking of this point at all.

The actual statement is "support and defend the constitution and laws of the United States". Now, obviously, you personally do not approve of every law, nor could anyone even know them all. If you swear "true faith and allegiance" to them you are swearing to follow and uphold the law, not to refrain from opposing it in a peaceful political manner as is supported by that very text. The only way as a citizen that you could actually break the first amendment would be if you were in a government position, because it's directed toward congress rather than the people. So, the typical prospective citizen can swear allegiance to that amendment with complete confidence that they will never be in a position for that to matter.

Some people call that "democracy.

Yes, but democracy doesn't mean that you have a right not to be criticized, shunned, fired, boycotted, and abused in any other lawful manner for your speech. However, this wasn't speech. It was deliberate spreading of falsehood and cheating the moderation system. Who in their right mind would not deplore such corruption?

The POTUS using a pseudonym to communicate via email is hardly a scandal,

Most transparent administration evah!

The actual 'scandal', is that it seems Obama lied when he said he only found out about her email system through media reports (a way he has learned about many things).

more of an extra layer of security in case someone does get their hands on classified emails

Why would the President be emailing classified information on an unclassified system?

(and possibly a way to make finding records more difficult).

Bingo. No doubt former EPA chief "Richard Windsor" agrees.

It's even more silly in that Presidential records are generally not FOIAable or subpoenable, even when her SoS emails were being released.

Interesting how neither the AC nor you put 2+2 together.

Outrage over the allegation of a presidential candidate working with a foreign leader 'against american interests'... while giving a pass to a sitting President who has actively done that for... 8 years now?

No doubt ISIS has been grateful for a Obama Presidency (because power vacuums are such a good idea), and hopes for a Clinton (aka 'no boots on the ground') one to follow.

Russia too has benefited greatly from the opportunities given to them by this administration.

I'm no Trump fan, however I've got a difficult time imagining how Trump could do any worse with Russia than Obama & Hillary have.

If they are behind the release of the fact Obama used a pseudonym to email hillary, despite the fact he denied having any knowledge of her private email. That's good to know too.

This I have not heard of.

It was part of a Friday document dump... you weren't supposed to hear about it: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

The time to address these issues is after the election.

That's the only time where anyone can legitimately claim that their concern is real, and not partisan sniping.

Depends on who is in office, or haven't you noticed that during the last 8 years, virtually any criticism of the President was deemed due to racism, just as any disagreements with a Clinton-45 presidency will only be due to sexism.

Politics never ends, it simply changes form through the year & election cycles.

So... because she's no longer SoS... the donations and apparent quid-pro-quos while she was in office don't matter any longer?

Sorry, plenty of foreign money came in WHILE she was SoS: https://www.washingtonpost.com...

So Obama should have been investigated by his own FBI over this? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...

They've already given Hillary & her crew a pass for multiple rather explicit criminal acts, why not investigate the otherside based on hearsay, who knows what you might find?