4 ms·

> The UN is pretty useless at this point. A member of its staff that is conducting an investigation can have their life threaded freely by a member government a

> The UN is pretty useless at this point. A member of its staff that is conducting an investigation can have their life threaded freely by a member government and the UN is powerless to do anything about it How would this analysis look if applied to the USA? Steve Bannon publicly called for the beheading of Dr. Fauci, a government official, and faces no real repercussions. Is the US government useless?

myrandomcomment 6y ago
How is this related? We have freedom of the press and speech in the USA, which means in general you get to say whatever dumb thing you want. It does not mean you are free of the consequences of doing so. He made those comments a citizen and not a member of a sitting government. If the comments where made when he was a sitting government official I would expect there to be consequences, however given the last 4 years I am not sure that accountability in politics is a thing anymore. We have entered an era where the "Ministry Of Truth" world view seems to get a pass form the public. The UN thing is a sitting government official threatening the life of a member of an international body of which they are a member of. The question is that the policy of Saudi Arabia? If so the UN should hold them accountable with censure or being expelled as this is obvious a volition of their membership. The fact that the UN can basically do zero is the reason it is useless.
- Ansil849 6y ago
  > We have freedom of the press and speech in the USA, which means in general you get to say whatever dumb thing you want. True threats, such as calling for someone to be murdered, are not covered by the first amendment.
  - myrandomcomment 6y ago
    Correct. If there is a belief that Bannon was not just being his normal blowhard jerk self I am sure the police would have had a chat with him. In the US, the Brandenburg v. Ohio case in 1969 limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action. In the case here with the UN, the Saudi government has been proven to be responsible for the planning and death of a dissident, which apply the logic above the threat was credible and the police should show up at their door. The issue is there is no "police" here expect the UN itself and they will do nothing because they are powerless.
    - consumer451 6y ago
      > If there is a belief that Bannon was not just being his normal blowhard jerk self I am sure the police would have had a chat with him. Fauci has 24/7 protection from a security detail for himself and his family. Clearly this “blowhard” blew hard enough for the US Marshals to be worried. I am quite sure that it was never the concern that Bannon himself would actually commit the murder.
  - gpm 6y ago
    I'm not a lawyer, but I do not believe that advocating for someone to be murdered qualifies as a true threat, as long as the advocation is not likely to lead to imminent violence I believe it is in fact protected speech [1]. True threat's must convery an imminent prospect of execution [2] not an abstract teaching that it is a good idea (paraphrased from [1]). [1] https://sites.psu.edu/2civichofman/2016/04/17/advocacy-of-violence/ https://sites.psu.edu/2civichofman/2016/04/17/advocacy-of-vi... [2] https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1025/true-threats https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1025/true-threats
- consumer451 6y ago
  My point that it is very easy to call things useless when they fail at something. As I’m sure you would know better than I, the UN is an attempt to address what is likely the most difficult and important problem that humanity has ever tried to address: global cooperation. It is an extremely easy target to throw shade at, I find it unhelpful and even inaccurate to call it “useless” writ large.
mensetmanusman 6y ago
Displays of anger usually involve violent imagery and rhetoric, so it is usually protected by the first amendment. That is why US politicians are allowed to be calling for additional unrest during riots and protests.
- Pyramus 6y ago
  How is that? Written or spoken words to incite hatred and violence are exempted from the protections of the First Amendment [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words
redis_mlc 6y ago
> Steve Bannon publicly called for the beheading of Dr. Fauci 1) No, he used a metaphor. I suggest you read what he said: “I’d actually like to go back to the old times of Tudor England, I’d put the heads on pikes, right, I’d put them at the two corners of the White House as a warning to federal bureaucrats,” he continued. “You either get with the program or you’re gone, time to stop playing games.” The Tudor period was 1485 to 1603. Maybe somebody can comment on whether leftists misunderstand what a metaphor is, or whether it's a dishonest narrative to discredit Bannon? 2) Frankly, Fauci was useless, so no great loss either way. He admitted that he's only interested in covid-19 medical information, without context for any other public policy (educational, economic, non-corona health, etc.)

myrandomcomment 6y ago

How is this related? We have freedom of the press and speech in the USA, which means in general you get to say whatever dumb thing you want. It does not mean you are free of the consequences of doing so. He made those comments a citizen and not a member of a sitting government. If the comments where made when he was a sitting government official I would expect there to be consequences, however given the last 4 years I am not sure that accountability in politics is a thing anymore. We have entered an era where the "Ministry Of Truth" world view seems to get a pass form the public. The UN thing is a sitting government official threatening the life of a member of an international body of which they are a member of. The question is that the policy of Saudi Arabia? If so the UN should hold them accountable with censure or being expelled as this is obvious a volition of their membership. The fact that the UN can basically do zero is the reason it is useless.

Ansil849 6y ago
> We have freedom of the press and speech in the USA, which means in general you get to say whatever dumb thing you want. True threats, such as calling for someone to be murdered, are not covered by the first amendment.
- myrandomcomment 6y ago
  Correct. If there is a belief that Bannon was not just being his normal blowhard jerk self I am sure the police would have had a chat with him. In the US, the Brandenburg v. Ohio case in 1969 limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action. In the case here with the UN, the Saudi government has been proven to be responsible for the planning and death of a dissident, which apply the logic above the threat was credible and the police should show up at their door. The issue is there is no "police" here expect the UN itself and they will do nothing because they are powerless.
  - consumer451 6y ago
    > If there is a belief that Bannon was not just being his normal blowhard jerk self I am sure the police would have had a chat with him. Fauci has 24/7 protection from a security detail for himself and his family. Clearly this “blowhard” blew hard enough for the US Marshals to be worried. I am quite sure that it was never the concern that Bannon himself would actually commit the murder.
- gpm 6y ago
  I'm not a lawyer, but I do not believe that advocating for someone to be murdered qualifies as a true threat, as long as the advocation is not likely to lead to imminent violence I believe it is in fact protected speech [1]. True threat's must convery an imminent prospect of execution [2] not an abstract teaching that it is a good idea (paraphrased from [1]). [1] https://sites.psu.edu/2civichofman/2016/04/17/advocacy-of-violence/ https://sites.psu.edu/2civichofman/2016/04/17/advocacy-of-vi... [2] https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1025/true-threats https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1025/true-threats
consumer451 6y ago
My point that it is very easy to call things useless when they fail at something. As I’m sure you would know better than I, the UN is an attempt to address what is likely the most difficult and important problem that humanity has ever tried to address: global cooperation. It is an extremely easy target to throw shade at, I find it unhelpful and even inaccurate to call it “useless” writ large.

mensetmanusman 6y ago

Displays of anger usually involve violent imagery and rhetoric, so it is usually protected by the first amendment. That is why US politicians are allowed to be calling for additional unrest during riots and protests.

Pyramus 6y ago
How is that? Written or spoken words to incite hatred and violence are exempted from the protections of the First Amendment [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words

redis_mlc 6y ago

> Steve Bannon publicly called for the beheading of Dr. Fauci 1) No, he used a metaphor. I suggest you read what he said: “I’d actually like to go back to the old times of Tudor England, I’d put the heads on pikes, right, I’d put them at the two corners of the White House as a warning to federal bureaucrats,” he continued. “You either get with the program or you’re gone, time to stop playing games.” The Tudor period was 1485 to 1603. Maybe somebody can comment on whether leftists misunderstand what a metaphor is, or whether it's a dishonest narrative to discredit Bannon? 2) Frankly, Fauci was useless, so no great loss either way. He admitted that he's only interested in covid-19 medical information, without context for any other public policy (educational, economic, non-corona health, etc.)