Bans often rely on the obscenity exception to the 1st Amendment:
https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/first-amendment-limits--obscenity.html
SCOTUS has never given a clear, well-defined, repeatable test to say exactly what "obscenity" even means, so local jurisdictions are free to push the envelope.
If that sounds like a pile of bullshit waiting to be exploited, yes, and that's exactly why we're seeing this happening.
Falsification of business records is apparently a "trivial matter" to a certain kind of person with government contracts.
"Corrupt" would almost certainly be a statement of opinion, so not actionable in the US. A lot more detail would be necessary for this to be defamation.
"Judge XXXX has taken millions in shadow bribes and has consistently ruled for the wishes of his/her benefactors. There has been a history of being reversed on appeal proving their bias. Also I watched them kick a puppy."
Then, obviously, these things would have to be false. Even then, the bar is pretty high. There are exceptions both ways on this, but as a general guideline, if the public knows a person's name (judge in a high profile case, for example) they are probably classified as a public figure. The rule there is one of "actual malice" which isn't exactly what it sounds like, but it's the highest bar for defamation cases.
The speaker would have to say something factually false, knowingly or with no regard for the truth. Giuliani, for one recent example, was found guilty of defaming the Georgia election workers, because he went into great detail about his false claims, and he was told repeatedly that thise claims were false, but he kept going.
9-5 and I work from home. Salaried, and in a department of one (me), so I do occasionally have to log in on a day off for a few minutes if something has a hard deadline.
But his supporters don't do any such thing as "thinking."
Requiring a login would probably cut off a significant portion of their audience and ad revenue. Only Google analysts know for sure, but if the eyeballs lost to cutting off casual visitors (sent to YT from links or embeds, etc) are greater than the losses due to, frankly, a small portion of users who would just end up blocking ads in other ways, it's a net loss for Google.
A 2022 survey finds 7.1% of Americans identify as LGBT:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/389792/lgbt-identification-ticks-up.aspx
Also in 2022, Texas had 9.0% of the population of the USA.
That's close enough that we can call being from Texas "abnormal" and start restricting all sort of rights.
"We are here to help in any way we can" from no closer than 500 yards away.
LMAO. The only time I visit Reddit any more is when it dominates the first page of search results. Spez has failed upwards for so long, he thinks he can fly.
That Tencent investment money is coming home to roost.
Instructions for a better browsing experience can be found at https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/browsers/
Also PETA got involved, because they've never seen an animal-centric story they couldn't weasel themselves into.