It is quite shitty. Sorry about your friend.
Usually. Right now, somebody is cooking something that is really, really heavy on the onions.
Well, some of them are just shooting priests in the face because they are aggressively praying at them.
Use DuckDuckGo. You can turn AI off and maybe you’ll be feeding the algorithms slightly less training data. Who knows.
I tried that. I got a bunch of stuff about Chappell Roan, and play lists. Really weirdly narrow results.
I remember reading several articles about this.
The matter is in the courts, last I heard a judge had blocked the “we require sex at birth on the passport” requirement but of course The Regime is asking the SCotUS to allow their oppression.
Of course, when I posted this, I meant Pope Francis. I don’t know where Pope Julius came from. From the sixteenth century apparently.
So, am I the Doper who waited the longest to correct their own post at eight days? Probably not, but I’d like to have the record for something.
Maybe you were thinking of the current despot wannabe, Orange Julius Caesar.
Perhaps. My brain never lets me know what’s going on with it.
This is the AI response I got from google.
The phrases “Fuck ICE” and “Fuck Anyone who Supports ICE” are a protest slogan used by opponents of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The slogan reflects the contentious national debate surrounding immigration policy and the actions of the agency, which was formed in 2003 under the Department of Homeland Security.
So I’m not sure.
Hello from 2026. While general warnings about law enforcement presence may be protected when they encourage lawful behavior, door-to-door, real-time warnings of ICE activity carry a higher risk of criminal liability. Especially so if the agents are executing arrest warrants, which they should have been pursuant to the consent decree.
The Friend case is interesting, but likely does not apply here. In that case, warnings about police activity (speed traps) presumably encouraged people to follow the law by driving more carefully. Similarly, in Elli v. Ellisville, flashing headlights alerted drivers in a way that promoted lawful behavior. In contrast, warning people of ICE activity could arguably facilitate illegal conduct (evading arrest) thus frustrating the execution of arrest warrants.
It is not clear-cut whether door-to-door warnings immediately ahead of ICE patrols are protected under the First Amendment or prosecutable as obstruction. If someone goes door-to-door just ahead of patrol cars, the government could argue that the speaker intends to help people evade arrest, potentially satisfying the intent element of obstruction. On the other hand, unlike traditional accessory cases (e.g. a lookout for a gambling den), the speaker may lack specific intent to help any particular individual. Cf. United States v. Bucher, 375 F.3d 929 (9th Cir. 2004) (warning a known arrest target on a trail “did interfere with both the rangers and their official duties”); but cf. People v. Llanos, 136 A.D.2d 391 (N.Y. App. Div 1988) (bystander who shouted “Police! Police!” without specific knowledge of the apartment occupants’ drug possession held not to be an accessory after-the-fact). Whether general intent to aid unknown individuals is sufficient to establish a crime is a contested, fact-dependent question.
As one observer noted (Reuters):
“If activists are recording ICE and telling people where they are with the intent to have people avoid ICE or have people physically interfere with ICE, that’s where it potentially gets dicey,” said Sophia Cope, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s civil liberties team. “If a case like that went to court, that might be a relevant factual difference to a court.”
To date, the Supreme Court has not squarely decided whether speech knowingly or intentionally facilitating crime is categorically protected by the First Amendment.
The Department of Justice has long taken the position that speech is not protected when uttered with intent to facilitate crime, or with knowledge that a particular recipient will use it to commit a crime. U.S. DoJ 1997 Report on the Availability of Bombmaking Information.
In United States v. Aguilar, 515 U.S. 593, 605-06 (1995), the Supreme Court upheld 18 U.S.C. § 2232(c) against a First Amendment challenge. That statute criminalizes giving notice of an impending search or seizure of property, with the intent to obstruct or frustrate that government action. The Court concluded that the statute was narrowly tailored to serve the government’s compelling interest in preventing interference with lawful searches and seizures, and therefore did not violate the First Amendment. Aguilar does not address the broader question of whether speech knowingly intended to facilitate crime is unprotected in other contexts. In contexts like Evelyn’s arrest, the First Amendment may not categorically shield real-time, targeted warnings intended to help individuals evade lawful arrests.
~Max
I think there’s a question here of whether or not ICE’s actions are “lawful”.
And also, the post above yours completely ignores that ICE does not come into a neighborhood with the intent to arrest some specific bad guy. They do not have warrants for anyone specific.
In Chicago they made a big show out of terrorizing Little Village solely because it’s a Mexican neighborhood.
Fuck ICE, and it’s defenders.
I think they know that what they do is unlawful…but they don’t really give a flying fuck. I think the question is, can they be stopped?
While possible, that would be illegal and contrary to the agency’s actual practices, even its illegal practices. They have a bad habit of going after one specific bad guy, with a warrant, and arresting anything that moves with brown skin along the way. That is also illegal because there is supposed to be an individualized determination of likely unlawful status and flight risk before issuing a warrantless arrest instead of a notice to appear.
Just three days before the events in Chicago described upthread, a federal court chastised ICE for making blatantly unlawful arrests (trying to make out warrants after the collateral individuals had been arrested), and it extended a consent decree requiring ICE to report all of its warrantless arrests until February 2026.
~Max
A law was also passed that all of the Epstein files would be released by mid Dec. 2025, and the files have not been. It sounds like you have not noticed that this administration does not give a flying fuck what the law says.
“That would be illegal” is the most naive thing one could say about this administration.
Fuck ICE and anyone who makes pathetic excuses for their actions.
Just thought you’d like to know that, googling the OP search today, the AI goes:
The phrase “Fuck ICE” and similar anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement sentiments have appeared frequently in recent, intense protests against U.S. immigration policies and mass deportations.
Recent developments as of January 2026 include:
Widespread Protests: Protests have occurred across the United States, including major demonstrations in Los Angeles, California, and Minneapolis, Minnesota, with crowds chanting “Fuck ICE” and “ICE out”.
Opposition to Raids: The protests are largely in response to intensified ICE raids on workplaces, neighborhoods, and the detainment of immigrants.
Celebrity and Public Reaction: Several celebrities, including Chappell Roan, Green Day’s Billie Joe Armstrong, and Finneas, have publicly used the phrase “Fuck ICE” or called for the agency to leave cities.
Local Resistance: In cities like Minneapolis, community members have organized patrols to protect neighborhoods from ICE, with businesses placing “Fuck ICE” signs on their doors.
Government Response: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has responded to this criticism by defending its actions, arguing they are removing dangerous individuals from streets.
Protest Symbolism: The slogan has appeared on merchandise, in social media hashtags, and in protest chalk drawings.
These actions reflect a deep, ongoing, and vocal opposition to the methods and existence of ICE from various activists, residents, and public figures.
A sign of progress?
We may misunderstand each other. I think Evelyn’s arrest was unconstitutional on Fourth Amendment grounds (requires reasonable arrests/reasonable force, warrantless arrests presumed unlawful). I was writing to explain why it would be more difficult for her to win, in court, by arguing the arrest violated her First Amendment rights. I do not intend to vindicate ICE’s clearly illegal behavior and apologize for pushing the conversation that way.
~Max
Well hey, that’s awesome of you to say!
I thought it was going to talk about Frozen porn.