5 ms·

it's the definition of speech and arguments of what is protected vs dangerous. specifically Trump's access to the platform is de facto supporting or implicitly

it's the definition of speech and arguments of what is protected vs dangerous. specifically Trump's access to the platform is de facto supporting or implicitly allowing Trump's right to lie, attack our Republic, spread violence. (if don't agree crosses into violent words, at least should agree definition something like: suggestively, dog whistle, saying it without saying)

rastignack 4y ago
Did a judge confirm your allegations ? Are we still governed by the law ?
- dillondoyle 4y ago
  Yes and yes he was impeached. the law of the constitution was followed. I don't believe anyone can make a good faith argument that his rhetoric did not incite violence. During the campaign, during BLM protests, and most important Jan 6
  - EricE 4y ago
    >Yes and yes he was impeached. But not convicted! Something you Trump obsessed seem to always leave out. So yeah, means nothing more than Clinton's impeachment. BLM? The summer of love? Surely you jest! And January 6 - sure you want to keep beating that drum? There is far more documented evidence of people on the FBI payroll inciting violence in the days leading up to January 6th than anyone in the Trump campaign, let alone of his followers. Indeed there is plenty of video of such wackos as Alex Jones and other right wing extremists telling people NOT to enter the capital. More video of capital police standing by or ushering people inside. I was watching it live on various live streams on January 6th because it smelled too good to be true. People being ushered inside by the capital police - that's one hell of an "insurrection". People walking between velvet ropes, not lighting shit on fire, spraying things with paint, knocking statues down. People walking inside of a public building and taking selfies. ZOMG! How will the republic survive?!? How many convictions have they gotten - after more than a year - of these "insurrectionists"? Zero. A few plea deals that are now unraveling. But sure, keep bang that "insurrectionist" drum.
    - dillondoyle 4y ago
      How can someone on this forum, evidently smart (or not), write this. seriously? Where is this documented evidence that more FBI employees were violent leading up to Jan 6. More than hundreds and hundreds storming the Capitol? You haven't seen the huge amount of footage of battering police, pepper spraying police, throwing spears at police, brutally beating a cop on the ground who now has long term head trauma, the death of police, ransacking, throwing over, messing with proprty. crazy. flag.
      - vdnkh 4y ago
        Look around, HN has swung very right in the past two years. The comments in any thread related to hot button issues turn into right-wing grievance fests (such as this one).
        dillondoyle 4y ago
        Yeah. It's hard to know what % though. Is it a vocal minority? A small one? The future causes me intense anxiety especially 2024 ;( though i do work in politics so perhaps I think about it too much. I have no idea how we can continue when such a large % of the country believes increasingly insane things
    - astrange 4y ago
      > But not convicted! Nah, they all determined he did it. Republican Senators like Lamar Alexander were all quoted saying that both times, they just went on to say they didn't care or they think he learned his lessons. > How many convictions have they gotten - after more than a year - of these "insurrectionists"? Zero. A few plea deals that are now unraveling. But sure, keep bang that "insurrectionist" drum. Over 150 by my count. The Oath Keeper who was Roger Stone's bodyguard that day pled guilty to actual sedition! It hasn't rolled up to Alex Jones and further up but it will, since he was intentionally leading people around to the east side for an attack on Pence by claiming Trump would "give a second speech" there. https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1503855795951312898 https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1503855795951312898 If you wanted to actually follow this, which is kind of a waste of time but might be educational(?): https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/04/04/the-evidence-needed-for-a-trump-prosecution/ https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/04/04/the-evidence-needed-fo...
  - nxmnxm99 4y ago
    You are a professional democrat so you're not exactly arguing impartially here, so it's probably not worth engaging, but: A republic isnt' based on "good faith arguments". There are 80 million people who will disagree with your "good faith argument". This is why courts exist. A political impeachment is not an impartial legal system. What are you even talking about? Your position of deciding for the public what the truth is is the biggest threat to the republic - not a single orange man.
  - PixyMisa 4y ago
    > Yes and yes he was impeached. the law of the constitution was followed. He was not convicted. That's the same as being tried and found not guilty in a court of law.
brigandish 4y ago
Dangerous speech, under US law, is that which is a credible and imminent danger to a person. > Trump's right to lie, attack our Republic, spread violence. I'd be happy with a right to lie, because it implicitly protects the rights of all others to speak truth. Would "attack our Republic" include via speech? Then I support a right to "attack" a republic, any republic. How does one "spread violence" that one is not engaged in?
- dillondoyle 4y ago
  You can not lump all lies together. There are different degrees. And most important a difference in who is telling the lie. Intent can not be separated either. What do you mean you support the right to attack a republic? You want to attack our government? We have a means to make change in our country/government. It's called Democracy, activism, and yes through protected (non violence causing) speech. Directly trying to literally overthrow a free and fair election & government by the chief executive and Members who are sworn to uphold the law and constitution is explicitly sedition and their 'speech' that caused and incited this should not be and is not protected. Trump's lies directly caused this and his actions were (and still are) a threat to the very foundation of law that protects our speech. He WAS involved in violence and is 100% responsible for instigating it on multiple occasions. He directed his supporters to act multiple times during first election on through most important Jan 6 obviously. Congress was attacked. People with guns and weapons broke into the Capital. I do NOT support the rick to literally attack our Republic/country it's crazy that people support this. There was permanent injury and death to multiple people. It was violence. Many explicitly intended to kill members of Congress.
  - EricE 4y ago
    >He WAS involved in violence Citation needed - and be specific with how he, personally, was "involved in violence".
    - dillondoyle 4y ago
      Here are just a few. Beyond his words, there are huge amounts of convicts who told the police they acted bc Trump's words or even used Trump's words as an argument in court to attempt to show they weren't directly responsible/as culpable. Trump might not punch protestors in the face himself, but his words cause acts of violence. -- Also given the topic twitter lays out specific examples on their platform. https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio... -- The clearing of lafayette square Trump said 'bust some heads' and reports of some blatant attempts to order the military to intervene inappropriately the entire summer. Trump saying "Seriously. Just knock the hell out of them. I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise. There won’t be so much of them because the courts agree with us," “when the looting starts, the shooting starts.” “I’d like to punch him in the face.” to a protester. A funny gem: Wanted spikes on his wall that would 'pierce flesh' 'shoot migrants' build an 'alligator moat'. Like, you can't make that up in a movie it would be too outlandish. Dr evil type contraption that can be easily overcome lol BLM "“That will never happen with me. I don’t know if I’ll do the fighting myself or if other people will. But that was a disgrace. … I felt badly for him, but it showed that he’s weak.”" Thugs pissing on and beating homeless people: “I think that would be a shame. I will say, the people that are following me are very passionate. They love this country. They want this country to be great again. But they are very passionate. I will say that,” infamous "very fine people" (charlottesville) Lots of reports of his wanting to use the military during the summer with clear tone and political intent. some reports of nebulous rants about doing the same after he lost to try and hold onto power. "we’d like to get them out a lot faster, and when you see these towns and when you see these thugs being thrown into the back of a paddy wagon, you just see them thrown in, rough, I said, please don’t be too nice. Like when you guys put somebody in the car and you’re protecting their head, you know, the way you put their hand over, like, don’t hit their head and they’ve just killed somebody. Don’t hit their head. I said, you can take the hand away, okay?" Gianforte body slam: “Any guy who can do a body-slam ... he’s my guy.” (wish we would have won that race Kathleen is great candidate...) Lots of campaign rally examples. “See, the first group, I was nice. ‘Oh, take your time.’ The second group, I was pretty nice. The third group, I’ll be a little more violent. And the fourth group, I’ll say get the hell out of here!” “You see, in the good old days, law enforcement acted a lot quicker than this. A lot quicker. In the good old days, they’d rip him out of that seat so fast — but today, everybody’s politically correct,” Another video of Trump saying “Get him the hell out of here! Get him out of here! Throw him out!” to a BLM protestor while a member of the crowd physically beats protester

rastignack 4y ago

Did a judge confirm your allegations ? Are we still governed by the law ?

dillondoyle 4y ago
Yes and yes he was impeached. the law of the constitution was followed. I don't believe anyone can make a good faith argument that his rhetoric did not incite violence. During the campaign, during BLM protests, and most important Jan 6
- EricE 4y ago
  >Yes and yes he was impeached. But not convicted! Something you Trump obsessed seem to always leave out. So yeah, means nothing more than Clinton's impeachment. BLM? The summer of love? Surely you jest! And January 6 - sure you want to keep beating that drum? There is far more documented evidence of people on the FBI payroll inciting violence in the days leading up to January 6th than anyone in the Trump campaign, let alone of his followers. Indeed there is plenty of video of such wackos as Alex Jones and other right wing extremists telling people NOT to enter the capital. More video of capital police standing by or ushering people inside. I was watching it live on various live streams on January 6th because it smelled too good to be true. People being ushered inside by the capital police - that's one hell of an "insurrection". People walking between velvet ropes, not lighting shit on fire, spraying things with paint, knocking statues down. People walking inside of a public building and taking selfies. ZOMG! How will the republic survive?!? How many convictions have they gotten - after more than a year - of these "insurrectionists"? Zero. A few plea deals that are now unraveling. But sure, keep bang that "insurrectionist" drum.
  - dillondoyle 4y ago
    How can someone on this forum, evidently smart (or not), write this. seriously? Where is this documented evidence that more FBI employees were violent leading up to Jan 6. More than hundreds and hundreds storming the Capitol? You haven't seen the huge amount of footage of battering police, pepper spraying police, throwing spears at police, brutally beating a cop on the ground who now has long term head trauma, the death of police, ransacking, throwing over, messing with proprty. crazy. flag.
    - vdnkh 4y ago
      Look around, HN has swung very right in the past two years. The comments in any thread related to hot button issues turn into right-wing grievance fests (such as this one).
      - dillondoyle 4y ago
        Yeah. It's hard to know what % though. Is it a vocal minority? A small one? The future causes me intense anxiety especially 2024 ;( though i do work in politics so perhaps I think about it too much. I have no idea how we can continue when such a large % of the country believes increasingly insane things
  - astrange 4y ago
    > But not convicted! Nah, they all determined he did it. Republican Senators like Lamar Alexander were all quoted saying that both times, they just went on to say they didn't care or they think he learned his lessons. > How many convictions have they gotten - after more than a year - of these "insurrectionists"? Zero. A few plea deals that are now unraveling. But sure, keep bang that "insurrectionist" drum. Over 150 by my count. The Oath Keeper who was Roger Stone's bodyguard that day pled guilty to actual sedition! It hasn't rolled up to Alex Jones and further up but it will, since he was intentionally leading people around to the east side for an attack on Pence by claiming Trump would "give a second speech" there. https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1503855795951312898 https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1503855795951312898 If you wanted to actually follow this, which is kind of a waste of time but might be educational(?): https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/04/04/the-evidence-needed-for-a-trump-prosecution/ https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/04/04/the-evidence-needed-fo...
- nxmnxm99 4y ago
  You are a professional democrat so you're not exactly arguing impartially here, so it's probably not worth engaging, but: A republic isnt' based on "good faith arguments". There are 80 million people who will disagree with your "good faith argument". This is why courts exist. A political impeachment is not an impartial legal system. What are you even talking about? Your position of deciding for the public what the truth is is the biggest threat to the republic - not a single orange man.
- PixyMisa 4y ago
  > Yes and yes he was impeached. the law of the constitution was followed. He was not convicted. That's the same as being tried and found not guilty in a court of law.

brigandish 4y ago

Dangerous speech, under US law, is that which is a credible and imminent danger to a person. > Trump's right to lie, attack our Republic, spread violence. I'd be happy with a right to lie, because it implicitly protects the rights of all others to speak truth. Would "attack our Republic" include via speech? Then I support a right to "attack" a republic, any republic. How does one "spread violence" that one is not engaged in?

dillondoyle 4y ago
You can not lump all lies together. There are different degrees. And most important a difference in who is telling the lie. Intent can not be separated either. What do you mean you support the right to attack a republic? You want to attack our government? We have a means to make change in our country/government. It's called Democracy, activism, and yes through protected (non violence causing) speech. Directly trying to literally overthrow a free and fair election & government by the chief executive and Members who are sworn to uphold the law and constitution is explicitly sedition and their 'speech' that caused and incited this should not be and is not protected. Trump's lies directly caused this and his actions were (and still are) a threat to the very foundation of law that protects our speech. He WAS involved in violence and is 100% responsible for instigating it on multiple occasions. He directed his supporters to act multiple times during first election on through most important Jan 6 obviously. Congress was attacked. People with guns and weapons broke into the Capital. I do NOT support the rick to literally attack our Republic/country it's crazy that people support this. There was permanent injury and death to multiple people. It was violence. Many explicitly intended to kill members of Congress.
- EricE 4y ago
  >He WAS involved in violence Citation needed - and be specific with how he, personally, was "involved in violence".
  - dillondoyle 4y ago
    Here are just a few. Beyond his words, there are huge amounts of convicts who told the police they acted bc Trump's words or even used Trump's words as an argument in court to attempt to show they weren't directly responsible/as culpable. Trump might not punch protestors in the face himself, but his words cause acts of violence. -- Also given the topic twitter lays out specific examples on their platform. https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio... -- The clearing of lafayette square Trump said 'bust some heads' and reports of some blatant attempts to order the military to intervene inappropriately the entire summer. Trump saying "Seriously. Just knock the hell out of them. I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise. There won’t be so much of them because the courts agree with us," “when the looting starts, the shooting starts.” “I’d like to punch him in the face.” to a protester. A funny gem: Wanted spikes on his wall that would 'pierce flesh' 'shoot migrants' build an 'alligator moat'. Like, you can't make that up in a movie it would be too outlandish. Dr evil type contraption that can be easily overcome lol BLM "“That will never happen with me. I don’t know if I’ll do the fighting myself or if other people will. But that was a disgrace. … I felt badly for him, but it showed that he’s weak.”" Thugs pissing on and beating homeless people: “I think that would be a shame. I will say, the people that are following me are very passionate. They love this country. They want this country to be great again. But they are very passionate. I will say that,” infamous "very fine people" (charlottesville) Lots of reports of his wanting to use the military during the summer with clear tone and political intent. some reports of nebulous rants about doing the same after he lost to try and hold onto power. "we’d like to get them out a lot faster, and when you see these towns and when you see these thugs being thrown into the back of a paddy wagon, you just see them thrown in, rough, I said, please don’t be too nice. Like when you guys put somebody in the car and you’re protecting their head, you know, the way you put their hand over, like, don’t hit their head and they’ve just killed somebody. Don’t hit their head. I said, you can take the hand away, okay?" Gianforte body slam: “Any guy who can do a body-slam ... he’s my guy.” (wish we would have won that race Kathleen is great candidate...) Lots of campaign rally examples. “See, the first group, I was nice. ‘Oh, take your time.’ The second group, I was pretty nice. The third group, I’ll be a little more violent. And the fourth group, I’ll say get the hell out of here!” “You see, in the good old days, law enforcement acted a lot quicker than this. A lot quicker. In the good old days, they’d rip him out of that seat so fast — but today, everybody’s politically correct,” Another video of Trump saying “Get him the hell out of here! Get him out of here! Throw him out!” to a BLM protestor while a member of the crowd physically beats protester