6 ms·

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

by 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.
    - bhupy 6y ago
      > 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 a concrete threat against a concrete target. Yes, but that use of force is not lawless. Police use of force against vandalism is currently legal. Calling for that is also legal, because it fails the "lawless" portion of the "imminent lawless action" test. Similarly, if POTUS calls for war against a specific nation (or group), it is within his rights to do that, no matter how violent or deadly war may be. War isn't a lawless action (for better or for worse). As such, the Commander in Chief declaring the intent to call on the legislature to approve a war is also protected, for the same reason.
      - danans 6y ago
        > Similarly, if POTUS calls for war against a specific nation (or group), it is within his rights to do that, no matter how violent or deadly war may be. Calling for war against a foreign adversary, yes. But for violence against domestic protesters - not clear that Brandenburg v Ohio protects that, regardless of whether the violence is lawful, and to what degree it is lawful. The use of violence by public officials is not a blanket right, and courts will likely consider the types of situation where particular levels of violence are legal or not. Also, there are specific legal prohibitions against using the military against domestic targets, which is one of the things Mattis was so incensed about in the photo op incident. The administration would like to claim they have the option of the Insurrection Act, which will again have to be tested in courts. Calling protests insurrection, even those that commit vandalism, is false on its face.
- bhupy 6y ago
  > 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. No matter how "credible", Brandenburg v Ohio's overruled Schenck v US and Whitney v California, the latter of which held that speech that merely advocated violence could be made illegal. Hess v Indiana further clarified that speech that amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time is protected by 1A. And finally, just because violence is disproportional, doesn't automatically make it "illegal". The threat of the use of legal force against vandalism, while "disproportionate", is entirely a valid use of speech for a politician, advocating a legal use of the police force. Your problem with this appears to be that police force is, today, legal. This is orthogonal to Trump's proclamations, and even more orthogonal to Facebook's platform.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > And finally, just because violence is disproportional, doesn't automatically make it "illegal". Yes, actually, it does. Specifically, police force that is not “objectively reasonable” in the circumstances in which it is used constitutes an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment [0], and is therefore directly prohibited by that Amendment for the federal government and prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment, which has been held to fully incorporate the search and seizure provisions of the Fourth, for the States. It is, also, when done under color of law a federal crime (in certain cases, a capital crime) under 18 USC § 242 and a federal tort under 42 USC § 1983, both prohibiting deprivation of Constitutionally protected rights under color of law. > Your problem with this appears to be that police force is, today, legal. I don't know about the grandparent, but my problem is that federal officials, including law enforcement officers, are committing violations of the federal Constitution which are also federal crimes against people who are merely calling for accountability for what are, among other things, a systematic pattern of similar federal, including capital, crimes and Constitutional violations that federal (and state and local, which have concurrent jurisdiction) law enforcement have been a mixture of actively complicit in and non- and mal-feasant in failing to prosecute. [0] Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)

by bhupy 6y ago

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.
  - bhupy 6y ago
    > 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 a concrete threat against a concrete target. Yes, but that use of force is not lawless. Police use of force against vandalism is currently legal. Calling for that is also legal, because it fails the "lawless" portion of the "imminent lawless action" test. Similarly, if POTUS calls for war against a specific nation (or group), it is within his rights to do that, no matter how violent or deadly war may be. War isn't a lawless action (for better or for worse). As such, the Commander in Chief declaring the intent to call on the legislature to approve a war is also protected, for the same reason.
    - danans 6y ago
      > Similarly, if POTUS calls for war against a specific nation (or group), it is within his rights to do that, no matter how violent or deadly war may be. Calling for war against a foreign adversary, yes. But for violence against domestic protesters - not clear that Brandenburg v Ohio protects that, regardless of whether the violence is lawful, and to what degree it is lawful. The use of violence by public officials is not a blanket right, and courts will likely consider the types of situation where particular levels of violence are legal or not. Also, there are specific legal prohibitions against using the military against domestic targets, which is one of the things Mattis was so incensed about in the photo op incident. The administration would like to claim they have the option of the Insurrection Act, which will again have to be tested in courts. Calling protests insurrection, even those that commit vandalism, is false on its face.
bhupy 6y ago
> 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. No matter how "credible", Brandenburg v Ohio's overruled Schenck v US and Whitney v California, the latter of which held that speech that merely advocated violence could be made illegal. Hess v Indiana further clarified that speech that amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time is protected by 1A. And finally, just because violence is disproportional, doesn't automatically make it "illegal". The threat of the use of legal force against vandalism, while "disproportionate", is entirely a valid use of speech for a politician, advocating a legal use of the police force. Your problem with this appears to be that police force is, today, legal. This is orthogonal to Trump's proclamations, and even more orthogonal to Facebook's platform.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > And finally, just because violence is disproportional, doesn't automatically make it "illegal". Yes, actually, it does. Specifically, police force that is not “objectively reasonable” in the circumstances in which it is used constitutes an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment [0], and is therefore directly prohibited by that Amendment for the federal government and prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment, which has been held to fully incorporate the search and seizure provisions of the Fourth, for the States. It is, also, when done under color of law a federal crime (in certain cases, a capital crime) under 18 USC § 242 and a federal tort under 42 USC § 1983, both prohibiting deprivation of Constitutionally protected rights under color of law. > Your problem with this appears to be that police force is, today, legal. I don't know about the grandparent, but my problem is that federal officials, including law enforcement officers, are committing violations of the federal Constitution which are also federal crimes against people who are merely calling for accountability for what are, among other things, a systematic pattern of similar federal, including capital, crimes and Constitutional violations that federal (and state and local, which have concurrent jurisdiction) law enforcement have been a mixture of actively complicit in and non- and mal-feasant in failing to prosecute. [0] Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)