4 ms·

When it was done with the intent of influencing the 2016 election, that tends to fall under conspiracy and espionage ... especially when it comes from a former

When it was done with the intent of influencing the 2016 election, that tends to fall under conspiracy and espionage ... especially when it comes from a former adversarial government.

gbumakefan 8y ago
So then was it illegal when msnbc aired the infamous Trump video saying “grab them by the p...”? That was clearly meant to influence the election...
- midniteslayr 8y ago
  First, that was the Washington Post that released the tape, and second, that is more for the fitness of the candidate (at the time). Third, and more importantly, it was obtained legally, without having to break in to a server to get it.
  - stordoff 8y ago
    > second, that is more for the fitness of the candidate (at the time) How are we distinguishing influencing the election and fitness of the candidate? I'm not seeing a substantive difference between the two, other that the source (if anything, their campaign practices seem more relevant).
  - gbumakefan 8y ago
    Wikileaks didn’t break into the server. No one knows how the emails were obtained. Your reply demonstrates your hypocrisy nicely. Clearly you just don’t like what Wikileaks has to say.
stale2002 8y ago
That's sounds like a political opinion that you just stated. Why are you trying to meddle in the political process, by engaging in political speech?
- kjksf 8y ago
  Unlike you, the law does make a distinction between expressing political opinion and unlawful interference with election process and we have independent judicial system to apply those laws.
  - stale2002 8y ago
    Indeed it does have a distinction. And the distinction is usually as follows: speech that threatens or criticises those in power is generally illegal, and the speech that supports it is legal.
vkou 8y ago
> When it was done with the intent of influencing the 2016 election Reality check - partisan newspapers, news channels, and news organizations publish partisan nonsense with the intent of influencing elections. All the time. Unfortunately, or fortunately, freedom of speech does not mean 'Freedom of unbiased speech.' If it did, then you could shut down the entire media establishment tomorrow.

When it was done with the intent of influencing the 2016 election, that tends to fall under conspiracy and espionage ... especially when it comes from a former adversarial government.

gbumakefan 8y ago

So then was it illegal when msnbc aired the infamous Trump video saying “grab them by the p...”? That was clearly meant to influence the election...

midniteslayr 8y ago
First, that was the Washington Post that released the tape, and second, that is more for the fitness of the candidate (at the time). Third, and more importantly, it was obtained legally, without having to break in to a server to get it.
- stordoff 8y ago
  > second, that is more for the fitness of the candidate (at the time) How are we distinguishing influencing the election and fitness of the candidate? I'm not seeing a substantive difference between the two, other that the source (if anything, their campaign practices seem more relevant).
- gbumakefan 8y ago
  Wikileaks didn’t break into the server. No one knows how the emails were obtained. Your reply demonstrates your hypocrisy nicely. Clearly you just don’t like what Wikileaks has to say.

stale2002 8y ago

That's sounds like a political opinion that you just stated. Why are you trying to meddle in the political process, by engaging in political speech?

kjksf 8y ago
Unlike you, the law does make a distinction between expressing political opinion and unlawful interference with election process and we have independent judicial system to apply those laws.
- stale2002 8y ago
  Indeed it does have a distinction. And the distinction is usually as follows: speech that threatens or criticises those in power is generally illegal, and the speech that supports it is legal.

vkou 8y ago

> When it was done with the intent of influencing the 2016 election Reality check - partisan newspapers, news channels, and news organizations publish partisan nonsense with the intent of influencing elections. All the time. Unfortunately, or fortunately, freedom of speech does not mean 'Freedom of unbiased speech.' If it did, then you could shut down the entire media establishment tomorrow.