7 ms·

Impossible. The President has absolute freedom of speech. He is the elected head of the Executive branch. To read any legal limitation on his ability to speak h

Impossible. The President has absolute freedom of speech. He is the elected head of the Executive branch. To read any legal limitation on his ability to speak his mind is to allow the other branches of government to unconstitutionally limit his powers. No other branch of government can claim that authority over him.

dawnerd 9y ago
Freedom of speech does not extend to private entities such as twitter.
- marcoperaza 9y ago
  >Freedom of speech does not extend to private entities such as twitter. I was responding specifically to this claim: >And if the President of the United States were to tweet something illegal? Shifting the goal posts mid conversation is incredibly dishonest. You can see my other replies on the larger thread for the reason why Twitter should not censor him, even though they legally could.
- withdavidli 9y ago
  It does unless Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is outdated [0]. [0]https://ballotpedia.org/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission https://ballotpedia.org/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_...
  - jakelazaroff 9y ago
    That decision lifted a restriction preventing private entities from running political advertisements in certain situations. What people generally mean (and indeed, what dawnerd means here) when they say "freedom of speech does not extend to private entities” is that even if speech is legal, a private entity has no obligation to host or disseminate it.
    - withdavidli 9y ago
      Is this a common phrase? I googled variations of it and only turned up less than 10 results. If that's what it means, then yes, I agree that private entities don't have to host it.
      - jakelazaroff 9y ago
        Not necessarily that exact wording, but yes: in the U.S. at least, this has been a popular topic recently with regard to things like Donald Trump on Twitter, NFL players kneeling during the national anthem, Google's firing of James Damore, removal of white supremacist content from various services, etc.
jakelazaroff 9y ago
This is empirically untrue. Bill Clinton was charged with perjury and obstruction of justice — both limitations on freedom of speech — during his time as President [1], although he was eventually acquitted. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton
- Natsu 9y ago
  Just to clarify what 'acquitted' applies to, I would note that President Bill Clinton was acquitted of the articles of impeachment by the US Senate. He settled the sexual harassment lawsuit with Paula Jones during appeal and agreed to a suspension of his license to practice law after being held in civil contempt of court by Federal District Judge Susan Webber Wright in separate proceedings.
- marcoperaza 9y ago
  There is clearly a difference between lying under oath and having opinions. Further, impeachment proceedings are 100% political, not legal. Grounds for impeachment are whatever half of the House of Representatives, and 2/3rds of the Senate, say they are.
  - ShabbosGoy 9y ago
    > Further, impeachment proceedings are 100% political, not legal. This is just straight up incorrect. If you read the Constitution, it states in Article I Section 2: "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." [1] Then in Section 3: "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments...and No Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present." [2] Checks and balances are political now? Hoooo boy. [1] https://genius.com/1290855 https://genius.com/1290855 [2] https://genius.com/4027445 https://genius.com/4027445
    - marcoperaza 9y ago
      You misunderstand me. What I’m saying is that the House and Senate could impeach a President for smiling too much if they wanted to. The requirement that it be for “crimes” is meaningless except politically.
afthonos 9y ago
I see that sort of feeling a lot. The president is not constitutionally incapable of committing crimes; that would be absurd. He is only able to stop enforcing laws in specific cases, arguably including his own. That’s a big difference. Among other things, it means that (1) his successor could reverse that decision and prosecute him and (2) Congress can take matters into their own hand via the impeachment route. So, yes, Presidents can definitely break the law, including laws that have to do with speech. However, I’m pretty sure the President hasn’t come within a mile of that so far. The First Anendment is pretty mighty.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- humanrebar 9y ago
  > The president is not constitutionally incapable of committing crimes I doubt the president will ever be arrested or tried in a traditional court while holding office. If the president was literally murdering people in public, Congress would have to have an emergency session, impeach the president, remove the president from office, then there'd probably be a trial somewhere that got appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court to decide if it was a valid trial. "The Constitution does not answer every question. It includes detailed instructions, for instance, about how Congress may remove a president who has committed serious offenses. But it does not say whether the president may be criminally prosecuted in the meantime." https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/29/us/politics/a-constitutional-puzzle-can-the-president-be-indicted.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/29/us/politics/a-constitutio... > So, yes, Presidents can definitely break the law, including laws that have to do with speech. There's a legal theory that the president, while serving the duties of the office, is given certain immunities. This is why the president doesn't always respond to subpoenas and why the local government can't issue a search warrant for Air Force One, etc. caveat: I am not a lawyer, though from my reading this isn't a matter of settled law anyway, so even lawyers are speculating.
  - afthonos 9y ago
    There are definite immunities at play; the comment I responded to seemed to imply that there was a blanket speech immunity, and the reasoning it provided would have made it a complete blanket immunity. That’s what I was saying wasn’t the case.
ubernostrum 9y ago
Richard Nixon once tried the "it's not illegal if the President does it" approach. It didn't work out so well for him. There are plenty of things the President of the United States -- any President -- could say on Twitter that would justifiably result in impeachment and conviction of a criminal offense. allow the other branches of government to unconstitutionally limit his powers. No other branch of government can claim that authority over him. The Constitution explicitly grants the other two branches of the federal government power to put the President on trial for alleged criminal offenses and convict him. The procedure has even been used twice, though both times it ended in acquittal. It'd be three times, and probably one conviction, if Nixon hadn't resigned. The President of the United States is not a king who gets to be above the law. And even in the English legal system we derive a lot of principles from, the king was, as Sir Edward Coke famously pointed out, king under law.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
marcoperaza 9y ago
I spoke too loosely here. What I mean to say is that, even if the First Amendment didn’t exist, the President must obviously be immune from any restriction on any of his speech that would be even a barely plausible basis for making policy, persuading voters and other elected officials, exercising his authority over the executive branch (especially the parts closest to him), wielding the country’s international leverage. His immunity probably cuts into some areas currently prohibited despite the First Amendment as well, like obscenity, some kinds of financial crimes (e.g. improper disclosures about public companies), workplace harassment, discrimination in hiring and managing the White House Office and cabinet, etc. He can of course be impeached for any of those things. The President can be impeached for any reason. The only real requirement is that 1/2 of the House and 2/3 of the Senate agree to it. They are the only and final arbiters of impeachment.

dawnerd 9y ago

Freedom of speech does not extend to private entities such as twitter.

marcoperaza 9y ago
>Freedom of speech does not extend to private entities such as twitter. I was responding specifically to this claim: >And if the President of the United States were to tweet something illegal? Shifting the goal posts mid conversation is incredibly dishonest. You can see my other replies on the larger thread for the reason why Twitter should not censor him, even though they legally could.
withdavidli 9y ago
It does unless Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is outdated [0]. [0]https://ballotpedia.org/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission https://ballotpedia.org/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_...
- jakelazaroff 9y ago
  That decision lifted a restriction preventing private entities from running political advertisements in certain situations. What people generally mean (and indeed, what dawnerd means here) when they say "freedom of speech does not extend to private entities” is that even if speech is legal, a private entity has no obligation to host or disseminate it.
  - withdavidli 9y ago
    Is this a common phrase? I googled variations of it and only turned up less than 10 results. If that's what it means, then yes, I agree that private entities don't have to host it.
    - jakelazaroff 9y ago
      Not necessarily that exact wording, but yes: in the U.S. at least, this has been a popular topic recently with regard to things like Donald Trump on Twitter, NFL players kneeling during the national anthem, Google's firing of James Damore, removal of white supremacist content from various services, etc.

jakelazaroff 9y ago

This is empirically untrue. Bill Clinton was charged with perjury and obstruction of justice — both limitations on freedom of speech — during his time as President [1], although he was eventually acquitted. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

Natsu 9y ago
Just to clarify what 'acquitted' applies to, I would note that President Bill Clinton was acquitted of the articles of impeachment by the US Senate. He settled the sexual harassment lawsuit with Paula Jones during appeal and agreed to a suspension of his license to practice law after being held in civil contempt of court by Federal District Judge Susan Webber Wright in separate proceedings.
marcoperaza 9y ago
There is clearly a difference between lying under oath and having opinions. Further, impeachment proceedings are 100% political, not legal. Grounds for impeachment are whatever half of the House of Representatives, and 2/3rds of the Senate, say they are.
- ShabbosGoy 9y ago
  > Further, impeachment proceedings are 100% political, not legal. This is just straight up incorrect. If you read the Constitution, it states in Article I Section 2: "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." [1] Then in Section 3: "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments...and No Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present." [2] Checks and balances are political now? Hoooo boy. [1] https://genius.com/1290855 https://genius.com/1290855 [2] https://genius.com/4027445 https://genius.com/4027445
  - marcoperaza 9y ago
    You misunderstand me. What I’m saying is that the House and Senate could impeach a President for smiling too much if they wanted to. The requirement that it be for “crimes” is meaningless except politically.

afthonos 9y ago

I see that sort of feeling a lot. The president is not constitutionally incapable of committing crimes; that would be absurd. He is only able to stop enforcing laws in specific cases, arguably including his own. That’s a big difference. Among other things, it means that (1) his successor could reverse that decision and prosecute him and (2) Congress can take matters into their own hand via the impeachment route. So, yes, Presidents can definitely break the law, including laws that have to do with speech. However, I’m pretty sure the President hasn’t come within a mile of that so far. The First Anendment is pretty mighty.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
humanrebar 9y ago
> The president is not constitutionally incapable of committing crimes I doubt the president will ever be arrested or tried in a traditional court while holding office. If the president was literally murdering people in public, Congress would have to have an emergency session, impeach the president, remove the president from office, then there'd probably be a trial somewhere that got appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court to decide if it was a valid trial. "The Constitution does not answer every question. It includes detailed instructions, for instance, about how Congress may remove a president who has committed serious offenses. But it does not say whether the president may be criminally prosecuted in the meantime." https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/29/us/politics/a-constitutional-puzzle-can-the-president-be-indicted.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/29/us/politics/a-constitutio... > So, yes, Presidents can definitely break the law, including laws that have to do with speech. There's a legal theory that the president, while serving the duties of the office, is given certain immunities. This is why the president doesn't always respond to subpoenas and why the local government can't issue a search warrant for Air Force One, etc. caveat: I am not a lawyer, though from my reading this isn't a matter of settled law anyway, so even lawyers are speculating.
- afthonos 9y ago
  There are definite immunities at play; the comment I responded to seemed to imply that there was a blanket speech immunity, and the reasoning it provided would have made it a complete blanket immunity. That’s what I was saying wasn’t the case.

ubernostrum 9y ago

Richard Nixon once tried the "it's not illegal if the President does it" approach. It didn't work out so well for him. There are plenty of things the President of the United States -- any President -- could say on Twitter that would justifiably result in impeachment and conviction of a criminal offense. allow the other branches of government to unconstitutionally limit his powers. No other branch of government can claim that authority over him. The Constitution explicitly grants the other two branches of the federal government power to put the President on trial for alleged criminal offenses and convict him. The procedure has even been used twice, though both times it ended in acquittal. It'd be three times, and probably one conviction, if Nixon hadn't resigned. The President of the United States is not a king who gets to be above the law. And even in the English legal system we derive a lot of principles from, the king was, as Sir Edward Coke famously pointed out, king under law.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

marcoperaza 9y ago

I spoke too loosely here. What I mean to say is that, even if the First Amendment didn’t exist, the President must obviously be immune from any restriction on any of his speech that would be even a barely plausible basis for making policy, persuading voters and other elected officials, exercising his authority over the executive branch (especially the parts closest to him), wielding the country’s international leverage. His immunity probably cuts into some areas currently prohibited despite the First Amendment as well, like obscenity, some kinds of financial crimes (e.g. improper disclosures about public companies), workplace harassment, discrimination in hiring and managing the White House Office and cabinet, etc. He can of course be impeached for any of those things. The President can be impeached for any reason. The only real requirement is that 1/2 of the House and 2/3 of the Senate agree to it. They are the only and final arbiters of impeachment.