4 ms·

> Lafayette Square is not POTUS' private lawn But St Johns church is not a public space, and vandalizing it is not legal. Even in public commons, vandalizing/t

by bhupy 6y ago

> Lafayette Square is not POTUS' private lawn But St Johns church is not a public space, and vandalizing it is not legal. Even in public commons, vandalizing/toppling public statues is currently not legal. Trump's tweets/posts are strictly about reprimanding this behavior. Again, there is a growing orthodoxy that holds that this behavior should not be reprimanded, but tweeting about enforcing those existing laws is well within the realm of reasonable discourse, especially for a political leader.

danans 6y ago
> But St Johns church is not a public space Lafayette Square is a public place, and that is where POTUS cleared peaceful protectors with force, so that he could walk across it for his photo op at the church. If it were an issue of protecting St John's Church property, they could have cleared just that property, and brought the president in with a helicopter. But the whole point was to demonstrate the show of force against the protesters. You appear to be focusing on St John's Church's private property with the goal of distracting attention from the public place where the actual use of force against peaceful protesters took place: Lafayette Square. One doesn't need to be a liberal to call out the shamefulness of that incident. In fact the hardly liberal James Mattis did exactly that, as did the other general who was caught in the photo op.
- bhupy 6y ago
  I think you have that backwards. The "photo op" incident occurred weeks ago, and James Mattis rightfully condemned it. The current spate of boycotts appear to be in response to Facebook's refusal to remove a post by Trump directly referring to the "Black House Autonomous Zone". That's why the focus is on St. John's church and statues — it's what is currently happening right now. I will include the text of Trump's post: "There will never be an “Autonomous Zone” in Washington, D.C., as long as I’m your President. If they try they will be met with serious force!" This has nothing to do with the photo op incident, and the willingness to focus on it distracts attention from the private place where actual vandalism and squatting is currently taking place. It's a valid (if crass) expression of a willingness to enforce the law, no matter how much people may disagree with it.
  - danans 6y ago
    Yes, it sounds like we were talking about different incidents. I personally support Facebook's ability to make the decision to either allow or disallow president's posts - within the parameters of the law - regardless of whether I would agree with their decision. The question is whether the parameters of law allow for a public official to issue credible threats of violence again citizens over mass media channels, and under what conditions. The actual use of force by this president in his shameful photo op incident in front of the church has clearly demonstrated without a shadow of doubt that his threat of disproportional violence against protesters - even for trivial purposes - is credible. The legality of all this is not a settled issue, and is something the courts may have to decide.
    - bhupy 6y ago
      The courts have already decided. The Brandenburg v Ohio precedent establishes the "imminent lawless action" test. Issuing threats of (legal) force against citizens that they perceive to be breaking the law fails the "imminent lawless action" test, and is currently within the parameters of the law.
      - danans 6y ago
        From the Brandenburg v Ohio wiki page: > The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Brandenburg's conviction, holding that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation Brandenburg was an individual private citizen advocating "abstractly" for violence against black and Jews as a representative of his private organization (the KKK). His speech rights were protected then by the case. However, we will almost certainly have court cases in the near future that will test the protections of hate speech, which is what we would more readily call Brandenburg's speech today. POTUS is a public official and in this incident was speaking in his role as a public official with the power to use force, and issuing a concrete threat against a specific target. He is speaking as the government itself because he is invoking the government's powers. It's not at all clear that Brandenburg v Ohio protects this sort of speech. There is plenty for the courts to still consider.

by bhupy 6y ago

danans 6y ago

> But St Johns church is not a public space Lafayette Square is a public place, and that is where POTUS cleared peaceful protectors with force, so that he could walk across it for his photo op at the church. If it were an issue of protecting St John's Church property, they could have cleared just that property, and brought the president in with a helicopter. But the whole point was to demonstrate the show of force against the protesters. You appear to be focusing on St John's Church's private property with the goal of distracting attention from the public place where the actual use of force against peaceful protesters took place: Lafayette Square. One doesn't need to be a liberal to call out the shamefulness of that incident. In fact the hardly liberal James Mattis did exactly that, as did the other general who was caught in the photo op.

bhupy 6y ago
I think you have that backwards. The "photo op" incident occurred weeks ago, and James Mattis rightfully condemned it. The current spate of boycotts appear to be in response to Facebook's refusal to remove a post by Trump directly referring to the "Black House Autonomous Zone". That's why the focus is on St. John's church and statues — it's what is currently happening right now. I will include the text of Trump's post: "There will never be an “Autonomous Zone” in Washington, D.C., as long as I’m your President. If they try they will be met with serious force!" This has nothing to do with the photo op incident, and the willingness to focus on it distracts attention from the private place where actual vandalism and squatting is currently taking place. It's a valid (if crass) expression of a willingness to enforce the law, no matter how much people may disagree with it.
- danans 6y ago
  Yes, it sounds like we were talking about different incidents. I personally support Facebook's ability to make the decision to either allow or disallow president's posts - within the parameters of the law - regardless of whether I would agree with their decision. The question is whether the parameters of law allow for a public official to issue credible threats of violence again citizens over mass media channels, and under what conditions. The actual use of force by this president in his shameful photo op incident in front of the church has clearly demonstrated without a shadow of doubt that his threat of disproportional violence against protesters - even for trivial purposes - is credible. The legality of all this is not a settled issue, and is something the courts may have to decide.
  - bhupy 6y ago
    The courts have already decided. The Brandenburg v Ohio precedent establishes the "imminent lawless action" test. Issuing threats of (legal) force against citizens that they perceive to be breaking the law fails the "imminent lawless action" test, and is currently within the parameters of the law.
    - danans 6y ago
      From the Brandenburg v Ohio wiki page: > The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Brandenburg's conviction, holding that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation Brandenburg was an individual private citizen advocating "abstractly" for violence against black and Jews as a representative of his private organization (the KKK). His speech rights were protected then by the case. However, we will almost certainly have court cases in the near future that will test the protections of hate speech, which is what we would more readily call Brandenburg's speech today. POTUS is a public official and in this incident was speaking in his role as a public official with the power to use force, and issuing a concrete threat against a specific target. He is speaking as the government itself because he is invoking the government's powers. It's not at all clear that Brandenburg v Ohio protects this sort of speech. There is plenty for the courts to still consider.