Yesterday's post was a cautionary tale for those who engage in online political discourse.
What did we learn yesterday, folks?
We learned that the First Amendment can cause these things:
If the First Amendment came with a warning label (it doesn't) it might say:
Weak, mentally-unstable, narcissistic individuals may be particularly susceptible to gastrointestinal side effects of First Amendment use and should proceed heated political discourse with caution.Despite this, some proceed at their own peril to litigate wronged bowels and must face the consequences.
First Amendment usage to attack others under a variety of screen names, ghostwritten screeds and at public meetings is NOT recommended for those susceptible to diarrhea, nausea, stress, headaches, exhaustion, insomnia, a debilitating sense of dread, paranoia, and related mental and physical debilities.
First Amendment usage is NOT recommended for litigious nutcases.
The First Amendment should not be mishandled for the filing frivolous defamation complaints. Such misuse may bite user in the ass.
After all, mishandling the First Amendment has deeply punitive effects on individuals, the U.S. Constitution and American democracy in general. Hence such abuses are taken very seriously by our courts.
Not all who suffer gastrointestinal distress from the First Amendment have detractors. Some support attacking the free speech of others, including but not limited to wealthy and powerful individuals.
Different strokes, as they say.