Thank you for pointing that out. If you are familiar with this case, you would know that there was no "in the past."
“Thank you for pointing that out. If you are familiar with this case, you would know that there was no “in the past.””
One would have to be “familiar” with case beyond what was given in the article, because nothing in the article refers to verifiable past activity of a similar nature - pro or con. If your more “familiar” with the case than the article, concerning the past, thanks for that input and then, on that basis, the GOP guy and the ACLU might have a case. Keep me posted if you are going to continue to follow it. This may be one case where FIRE and the ACLU team up.