This forum requires a basic assumption of good faith for posters, especially when it comes to such a trivial mistake like having the wrong anchor section on a link to a short article. It was probably an artifact of their browser trying to be “helpful” when they were copying the link to the full article. Your aggression is unwarranted.

What aggression? Nothing they said was aggressive.

No aggression I can see, remember the good faith assumption!

A critical question is not hostile, it's part of proper discourse.

Enough with the "you can't ever make me look bad because that's toxic" bs, it's nothing but a thinly veiled drive to protect misinformation and bad actors.

In almost all cases, the only time I see comments like yours on HN are attempts to protect bad actors or those who have engaged in some undesirable activity. (Might be experience bias and I'm just not encountering the appropriate uses)

Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36944821 was particularly bad. We ban accounts that do that kind of thing, so please don't again.

If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.

So someone can't note that someone ignored the issue and engaged in fallacious conduct in a shorthand form?

Why not address the comments which induced that response as well?

Why not address the outright trolls engaged in conduct actively intended to maintain the superficial appearance of good faith?

Focusing on "easy pickings" of someone who is tired of writing a page in response only to discover it was always pointless due to the disingenuous nature of the prior user seems itself prone to leading to loss of those who are in fact acting in good faith and seeking to engage in a genuine fashion...

Sorry if that's too "hostile" just because I believe in being blunt and not sugar coating every statement in conditionals, caveats and consider truth to only be achieved through thorough and concise criticism.

Probably the giant “United States” section with dozens of examples?

But they linked a specific section, and it wasn't the United States section.

I do not think that the United States section of that article is valid. It seems to equate speech with communication.

It does not feel right to call an IRS tax return "speech".

Speech in this context means an expression of ideas, wether literal speech, or a newspaper article, or...

US law uses 'speech' that way.

'Expression' would arguably be a better word for it, but the term of art is what it is.