Supreme Court Rules RTs = Endorsements
WASHINGTON — For years twitter profiles stated “RTs ≠ endorsements” as matter of fact, but the U.S. Supreme Court today handed down a 5–4 ruling in favor of Retweets equaling endorsements. “After reviewing the constitutional underpinnings of this case, the court finds that Retweets, no matter how out-of-control, bonkers wacky AF they are, do equal endorsements,” Justice Samuel A. Alito wrote in his majority opinion.
The Supreme Court’s landmark decision sent shock waves across America. “Just because I retweet O-Bummer should go back to Kenya, does not necessarily reflect the views of Chad Summers Pool Cleaning,” said Chad Summers of Chad Summers Pool Cleaning. “People need to know that when I retweet Obama was a Muslim, it doesn’t necessary mean I endorse it.” As the sole proprietor of Chad Summers Pool Cleaning, Mr. Summers is concerned people will think Chad Summers Pool Cleaning is racist. “No, Chad Summers Pool Cleaning does not endorse racism despite what the Jewpreme Court says,” he added.
In a dissenting opinion, authored by Clarence Thomas, the Associate Justice argued that “RTs ≠ endorsements” citing the ruling in “Roe v. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯” And that trolling without consequences was mandated by the U.S. Constitution.
