No, Anti-SLAPP laws are meant to prevent people from interfering with freedom of

No, Anti-SLAPP laws are meant to prevent people from interfering with freedom of speech. Filing a lawsuit for conspiracy to destroy the value of a business by coercion of (threat to) its customers, in order to impose limits on freedom of speech is a rather simple argument. You do not realize that you are projecting your morals as law where such a law does not exist.

Maybe you should leave grownup conversation to grownups.

Here is the dummy version:
–“Hate speech in the United States cannot be directly regulated by the government due to the fundamental right to freedom of speech protected by the Constitution. While “hate speech” is not a legal term in the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that most of what would qualify as hate speech in other western countries is legally protected speech under the First Amendment. In a Supreme Court case on the issue, Matal v. Tam (2017), the justices unanimously reaffirmed that there is effectively no “hate speech” exception to the free speech rights protected by the First Amendment and that the U.S. government may not discriminate against speech on the basis of the speaker’s viewpoint.”–

Reply addressees: @LexerD1986 @lauferlaw @elonmusk @alx