What did he mean by this? Is Alito no longer /ourguy/?

It's a comment taken out of context. in full:

It is claimed that the disparagement clause serves two interests. The first is phrased in a variety of ways in the briefs. Echoing language in one of the opinions below, the Government asserts an interest in preventing “‘underrepresented
groups’” from being “‘bombarded with demeaning messages in commercial advertising.’” Brief for Petitioner 48 (quoting 808 F.3d, at 1364 (Dyk, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)). An amicus
supporting the Government refers to “encouraging racial tolerance and protecting the privacy and welfare of individuals.” Brief for Native American Organizations as Amici Curiae 21. But no matter how the point is phrased,
its unmistakable thrust is this: The Government has an interest in preventing speech expressing ideas that offend. And, as we have explained, that idea strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or
any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.” United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U. S. 644, 655 (1929) (Holmes,J., dissenting).

>>130561557
do you know what "taken out of context" means?

hint: it doesnt mean that the context was removed, it means that the quote is being used outside of the context, which is not the case here.

>>130561557

Thanks for that. I should have read the opinion on my own. Whoever wrote that fox news article is a dumbass.

>>130561557
Jesus it's the exact opposite of the headline

he doesn’t want to get assassinated like a certain other judge