4 ms·

I am not - and I hope no one seriously is - talking about stopping or curtailing speech for everyone. Trump & members of Congress's actions are not "opinion: d

I am not - and I hope no one seriously is - talking about stopping or curtailing speech for everyone. Trump & members of Congress's actions are not "opinion: disputable, open to discussion." Clear facts that actually happened. The election was free and fair. Fact. There was minuscule fraud which did not affect outcomes, even on the smallest level. Plus a decent chunk of the worst offenders were Republicans including the COS who actively engaged in this sedition. Fact. Congress was violently attacked. Fact. Trump & sworn Government Representatives tried to overturn the election, subvert democracy, and overthrow the Government. Fact. That can not be supported and is a clear exception to free speech that is grossly & intentionally harmful.

john_the_writer 4y ago
- dillondoyle 4y ago
  How the hell did you get that from what i wrote
  - john_the_writer 4y ago
    > I am not - talking about stopping or curtailing speech for everyone. > But we should stop people from saying things we know are lies. Paraphrasing the last bit.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
nradov 4y ago
While I deplore the way that Trump and some members of Congress attempted to undermine the election results, the 1st Amendment contains no exception for such actions. You should read the Constitution.
- weakfish 4y ago
  I think they may be referring to legal precedent that has been set, I.e. fire in a crowded theater, but that’s just my off the top of my head guess from mobile
  - nradov 4y ago
    No that wouldn't be a valid or relevant legal precedent for this issue.
- dillondoyle 4y ago
  I did not say there is some specific written clause in the constitution tying speech and sedition. I am not an extreme textualist SCOTUS member lol. To the below comment, I do believe courts have interpreted and created law which applies to Trump's words and actions, specifically on reasonable restrictions to speech which incites, creates, has immediate danger. Trump's actions and words fit that and he is culpable for the actions resulting from his words. On the actual law surrounding the consequences of his speech and attempts to subvert our Government and Democracy Fourteenth Amendment Section 3 No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. Law specific says incites https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/part1/chapter115&edition=prelim#:~:text=Whoever%20incites%2C%20sets%20on%20foot,holding%20any%20office%20under%20the https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/par...
  - nradov 4y ago
    Trump has never been officially sanctioned under the 14th Amendment so your point is moot. There's not even a direct relationship between the 1st and 14th Amendments.
brigandish 4y ago
As we're discussing freedom of speech then I will ignore the content of the speech and focus on whether it can be expressed and/or what limits should be put on it. Hence, those facts, as you assert, are moot. Additionally, as Mill wrote: > Strange it is, that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free discussion, but object to their being "pushed to an extreme;" not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case. Strange that they should imagine that they are not assuming infallibility, when they acknowledge that there should be free discussion on all subjects which can possibly be doubtful, but think that some particular principle or doctrine should be forbidden to be questioned because it is so certain, that is, because they are certain that it is certain. To call any proposition certain, while there is any one who would deny its certainty if permitted, but who is not permitted, is to assume that we ourselves, and those who agree with us, are the judges of certainty, and judges without hearing the other side. Hence, the veracity of those facts is irrelevant. > That can not be supported and is a clear exception to free speech that is grossly & intentionally harmful. Here we find a limit - should speech that is knowingly wrong and malicious be allowed? We're back to infallibility. Are you going to prove to me that Trump committed mens rea, or do you think he'd be able to claim he really believes the election was stolen from him? You don't have the ability to read minds.
- dillondoyle 4y ago
  Trump's actions speak way more clear than whatever clouded, deluded, idiotic trains of thoughts move through his mind. His actions are clear, direct, immediate threat and dangerous. Speech his says to support that should not be accepted.
  - brigandish 4y ago
    > Trump's actions speak way more clear than whatever clouded, deluded, idiotic trains of thoughts move through his mind. Did you skip over the bit where Mill mentions infallibility? > His actions are clear, direct, immediate threat and dangerous. Not according to US law. > Speech his says to support that should not be accepted. As Chomsky would say, even Stalin and Goebbels were in favour of freedom of speech for speech they agreed with.

john_the_writer 4y ago

dillondoyle 4y ago
How the hell did you get that from what i wrote
- john_the_writer 4y ago
  > I am not - talking about stopping or curtailing speech for everyone. > But we should stop people from saying things we know are lies. Paraphrasing the last bit.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

nradov 4y ago

While I deplore the way that Trump and some members of Congress attempted to undermine the election results, the 1st Amendment contains no exception for such actions. You should read the Constitution.

weakfish 4y ago
I think they may be referring to legal precedent that has been set, I.e. fire in a crowded theater, but that’s just my off the top of my head guess from mobile
- nradov 4y ago
  No that wouldn't be a valid or relevant legal precedent for this issue.
dillondoyle 4y ago
I did not say there is some specific written clause in the constitution tying speech and sedition. I am not an extreme textualist SCOTUS member lol. To the below comment, I do believe courts have interpreted and created law which applies to Trump's words and actions, specifically on reasonable restrictions to speech which incites, creates, has immediate danger. Trump's actions and words fit that and he is culpable for the actions resulting from his words. On the actual law surrounding the consequences of his speech and attempts to subvert our Government and Democracy Fourteenth Amendment Section 3 No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. Law specific says incites https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/part1/chapter115&edition=prelim#:~:text=Whoever%20incites%2C%20sets%20on%20foot,holding%20any%20office%20under%20the https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/par...
- nradov 4y ago
  Trump has never been officially sanctioned under the 14th Amendment so your point is moot. There's not even a direct relationship between the 1st and 14th Amendments.

brigandish 4y ago

As we're discussing freedom of speech then I will ignore the content of the speech and focus on whether it can be expressed and/or what limits should be put on it. Hence, those facts, as you assert, are moot. Additionally, as Mill wrote: > Strange it is, that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free discussion, but object to their being "pushed to an extreme;" not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case. Strange that they should imagine that they are not assuming infallibility, when they acknowledge that there should be free discussion on all subjects which can possibly be doubtful, but think that some particular principle or doctrine should be forbidden to be questioned because it is so certain, that is, because they are certain that it is certain. To call any proposition certain, while there is any one who would deny its certainty if permitted, but who is not permitted, is to assume that we ourselves, and those who agree with us, are the judges of certainty, and judges without hearing the other side. Hence, the veracity of those facts is irrelevant. > That can not be supported and is a clear exception to free speech that is grossly & intentionally harmful. Here we find a limit - should speech that is knowingly wrong and malicious be allowed? We're back to infallibility. Are you going to prove to me that Trump committed mens rea, or do you think he'd be able to claim he really believes the election was stolen from him? You don't have the ability to read minds.

dillondoyle 4y ago
Trump's actions speak way more clear than whatever clouded, deluded, idiotic trains of thoughts move through his mind. His actions are clear, direct, immediate threat and dangerous. Speech his says to support that should not be accepted.
- brigandish 4y ago
  > Trump's actions speak way more clear than whatever clouded, deluded, idiotic trains of thoughts move through his mind. Did you skip over the bit where Mill mentions infallibility? > His actions are clear, direct, immediate threat and dangerous. Not according to US law. > Speech his says to support that should not be accepted. As Chomsky would say, even Stalin and Goebbels were in favour of freedom of speech for speech they agreed with.