What you did was selectively quote the 1 part that supported your agenda, while refusing to talk about the 2nd part because if didn't suit your agenda.
That is lying by omission.
As such an expert in this case, tell me, why did you not mention the equally important 2nd part of the ruling, if you weren't being dishonest? Why did the ACLU (and many others) think the 2nd part was equally important, but you thought it was ok to ignore the 2nd part?
