Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Trump vs. First AmendmentFollow

#1 Jun 01 2020 at 6:45 PM Rating: Excellent
*
63 posts
Trump Says He'll Deploy Military To States If They Don't Stop Violent Protests

Quote:
Escalating his rhetoric during a period of roiling national crises, President Trump on Monday threatened to deploy the United States military to cities or states that don't take "necessary" actions to halt violent protests, saying the armed forces will "quickly solve the problem for them."


I dunno about y'all, but this is kiiiinda starting to worry me. Like a lot.

Here in Raleigh, over the past few nights, we've had white groups trying to instigate during the peaceful BLM protests. They've been tagging LGBTQ+ and minority-owned businesses with Odin's Cross. We had Boogaloos driving through fully-armed sitting in the back of pickups. We've had Proud Boys starting fires in local businesses. We've had groups of marauding white teens (god, I feel old typing that) throwing water bottles and rocks at riot cops, and then retreating into the peaceful crowd.

We're seeing it crop up all over the nation, where people who are explicitly not part of the BLM movement are causing mayhem. Why they're causing mayhem, feel free to speculate, my take is that a good number are trying to make the protests look bad. There are probably some that are just using the opportunity to live out some anarchistic fantasies.

Regardless, though, this is pretty concerning, and I'm really hoping people stop the President from saying these dangerous and inciting things.
#2 Jun 02 2020 at 3:57 AM Rating: Excellent
****
4,135 posts
Obligitory "Who the fuck are you?"
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#3 Jun 02 2020 at 6:41 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
If the November election is postponed, called off, taken over, defrauded or somehow disturbed, that would be very concerning. Trump is losing his bid for president for reelection pretty badly.

I'm up to season seven of The Walking Dead. The dilemma of the day always seems to be trust or don't trust, kill or save, unknown people. I think the lesson we're supposed to be getting is humans help humans. So to Velicenda I offer greetings and salutation and have three questions:

1. how many trolls have you killed
2. how many socks have you made
3. Why? Also, are you Varrus?

____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#4 Jun 03 2020 at 12:43 AM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
Can't be Varus; his/her writing is comprehensible.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#5 Jun 03 2020 at 6:20 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Velicenda wrote:
Regardless, though, this is pretty concerning, and I'm really hoping people stop the President from saying these dangerous and inciting things.
Not going to happen. He has happily surrounded himself with Yes men/women.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#6 Jun 03 2020 at 6:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Can't be Varus; his/her writing is comprehensible.
Nor did a single thing he/she wrote align with anything that spastic would've said.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#7 Jun 03 2020 at 6:25 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
The President can't unilaterally deploy US military forces to sovereign states.

Calm your tits.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#8 Jun 04 2020 at 7:08 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
Can't be Varus; his/her writing is comprehensible.
Nor did a single thing he/she wrote align with anything that spastic would've said.

I just needed a third question. I referenced The Walking Dead in the post, but clearly not everyone's head is all wound around the silly soap opera as mine is. AND, as I head into season 9, I learn that this show doesn't end - it's still going! But here's the thing, in The Walking Dead series, before anyone is invited into the main community they have to answer three questions: 1. How many walkers have you killed 2. How many people have you killed 3. Why

I needed a third question - that was all. I don't think the post author is Varrus. (99% surety)

____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#9 Jun 06 2020 at 9:59 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,543 posts
No mention of okra farming. No word for word script ripped directly from talk radio. Could it just be an old EQ player who had a mighty need to talk about current events?
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#10 Jun 07 2020 at 10:08 PM Rating: Excellent
*
63 posts
stupidmonkey wrote:
Obligitory "Who the fuck are you?"

Man, I've been asking myself that for a loooong time.

Friar Bijou wrote:
Can't be Varus; his/her writing is comprehensible.

Definitely not Varus. I vaguely remember that guy, though.

Demea wrote:

Calm your tits.

Shan't.

Kuwoobie wrote:
No mention of okra farming. No word for word script ripped directly from talk radio. Could it just be an old EQ player who had a mighty need to talk about current events?

Eh, I forgot my original login that was 10+ years old. Figured there's no better way to farm some karma than talking about current events.
#11 Jun 08 2020 at 1:01 PM Rating: Good
****
4,135 posts
It's not BT.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#12 Jun 12 2020 at 6:30 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Velicenda wrote:
Regardless, though, this is pretty concerning, and I'm really hoping people stop the President from saying these dangerous and inciting things.
Not going to happen. He has happily surrounded himself with Yes men/women.


I was going to go with the whole "1st amendment" thing. Pretty freaking ironic to title the thread "Trump vs First Amendment", then bash Trump for threatening to use the military to stop riots and looting (which, last I checked are *not* protected speech), and then finish off by expressing a hope that someone stops the President from saying things that the author believes to be "dangerous and inciting things". Which, last I checked actually is protected speech.

Labeling speech you disagree with "dangerous" in order to squelch it is kinda why we have the first amendment in the first place. Sadly, far too many people don't actually understand how basic rights actually work, or why they exist.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#13 Jun 13 2020 at 8:16 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
I'm all for the president sending in troops so long as their goal is to disarm police of all the military grade crap they've acquired over the years. If anyone needs that level of stuff, well, that's what the National Guard is for. Y'know, decent, moral people instead of power-hungry thugs.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#14 Jun 13 2020 at 8:24 AM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
gbaji wrote:
I was going to go with the whole "1st amendment" thing. Pretty freaking ironic to title the thread "Trump vs First Amendment", then bash Trump for threatening to use the military to stop riots and looting (which, last I checked are *not* protected speech), and then finish off by expressing a hope that someone stops the President from saying things that the author believes to be "dangerous and inciting things". Which, last I checked actually is protected speech.

You know that the First Amendment covers more than just free speech, right? I assume the OP was referring to "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" (the key word in this case being "peaceably").
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#15 Jun 13 2020 at 11:00 AM Rating: Excellent
*
63 posts
gbaji wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Velicenda wrote:
Regardless, though, this is pretty concerning, and I'm really hoping people stop the President from saying these dangerous and inciting things.
Not going to happen. He has happily surrounded himself with Yes men/women.


I was going to go with the whole "1st amendment" thing. Pretty freaking ironic to title the thread "Trump vs First Amendment", then bash Trump for threatening to use the military to stop riots and looting (which, last I checked are *not* protected speech), and then finish off by expressing a hope that someone stops the President from saying things that the author believes to be "dangerous and inciting things". Which, last I checked actually is protected speech.

Labeling speech you disagree with "dangerous" in order to squelch it is kinda why we have the first amendment in the first place. Sadly, far too many people don't actually understand how basic rights actually work, or why they exist.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there parts of speech that aren't covered under 1A? Such as threats of violence?

Also, I'm not necessarily saying they need to duct tape his mouth shut and disallow him to appear in public. I'm just saying that maybe they should vet his Tweets before he inspires more unnecessary violence in his fanbase.

Side note, are you disagreeing that him threatening military action against civilians is "dangerous"?
#16 Jun 14 2020 at 4:27 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
Velicenda wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there parts of speech that aren't covered under 1A? Such as threats of violence?

There are a handful of narrow exceptions to free speech protection; you're likely thinking of either the "true threats" or "fighting words" exceptions. Of course, neither of those would apply to the President making policy proposals unless he said something like "I'm going to deploy the US Military to kill Jeff."
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#17 Jun 14 2020 at 5:25 PM Rating: Excellent
*
63 posts
Demea wrote:
Velicenda wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there parts of speech that aren't covered under 1A? Such as threats of violence?

There are a handful of narrow exceptions to free speech protection; you're likely thinking of either the "true threats" or "fighting words" exceptions. Of course, neither of those would apply to the President making policy proposals unless he said something like "I'm going to deploy the US Military to kill Jeff."


Freedom of speech does not include the right: ..."To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., “[S]hout[ing] ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”).
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). "


I mean, he's not shouting "fire", but there have been cases where his speech has clearly incited violence.

Yes, I am aware these are extremist cases. No, this list is not exhaustive.

My point is, when we see him encouraging certain groups of people exercising their 1A right to peacefully assemble (such as the extremely armed white groups in Michigan during the first wave of COVID) while insulting and belittling other groups (calling BLM protesters "thugs"), he may not be saying, "Shoot the protesters", but that's the message he's conveying.
#18 Jun 14 2020 at 7:39 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
**** Jeff.

Also having your Twitter account closed or a post on a forum deleted isn't against your Freedom of Speech. Just because you're free to say something doesn't mean anyone has to help you be heard.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#19 Jun 15 2020 at 7:20 AM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
Velicenda wrote:
Demea wrote:
Velicenda wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there parts of speech that aren't covered under 1A? Such as threats of violence?

There are a handful of narrow exceptions to free speech protection; you're likely thinking of either the "true threats" or "fighting words" exceptions. Of course, neither of those would apply to the President making policy proposals unless he said something like "I'm going to deploy the US Military to kill Jeff."


Freedom of speech does not include the right: ..."To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., “[S]hout[ing] ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”).
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). "


I mean, he's not shouting "fire", but there have been cases where his speech has clearly incited violence.

Yes, I am aware these are extremist cases. No, this list is not exhaustive.

My point is, when we see him encouraging certain groups of people exercising their 1A right to peacefully assemble (such as the extremely armed white groups in Michigan during the first wave of COVID) while insulting and belittling other groups (calling BLM protesters "thugs"), he may not be saying, "Shoot the protesters", but that's the message he's conveying.

Yeah, he's talking out of both sides of his mouth, for sure. It's still not legally actionable under the first amendment.

You should really read up more Schenck v. United States. The phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theater" was added as rhetorical flair to uphold the conviction of a registered Communist under the Espionage act for distributing anti-draft flyers to draft-age men during WW1 as a way to protest the war. It's literally one of the most anti-free speech decisions in US history.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#20 Jun 15 2020 at 7:25 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Demea wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I was going to go with the whole "1st amendment" thing. Pretty freaking ironic to title the thread "Trump vs First Amendment", then bash Trump for threatening to use the military to stop riots and looting (which, last I checked are *not* protected speech), and then finish off by expressing a hope that someone stops the President from saying things that the author believes to be "dangerous and inciting things". Which, last I checked actually is protected speech.

You know that the First Amendment covers more than just free speech, right? I assume the OP was referring to "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" (the key word in this case being "peaceably").


Yes. I got that. The issue here is the OP twisting the words of Trump. He very specifically was talking about "violent protests", not the peaceful protests the OP claims he's somehow violating the rights of. So you have the OP complaining about a violation of the First Amendment, when there is no violation (rioting and looting is *not* protected by the first amendment at all), while simultaneously calling for a muzzle on Trump's speech (talking about using troops to put down the riots and looting).

While there certainly are forms of speech that are not protected, talking about doing something you are legally allowed to do in response to someone else's *illegal actions* is most definitely not one of those forms. Otherwise, we'd find us in the absurd condition of Trump being able to do something, but not say he's doing it. So a cop can shoot a suspect in the midst of attempting an armed robbery, but can no longer say "stop, or I'll shoot!" prior to doing so? Even as a warning to maybe get said guy to stop, you now, before he has to shoot him? That's... nuts.

Edited, Jun 15th 2020 5:26pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#21 Jun 15 2020 at 7:43 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Velicenda wrote:
Demea wrote:
Velicenda wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there parts of speech that aren't covered under 1A? Such as threats of violence?

There are a handful of narrow exceptions to free speech protection; you're likely thinking of either the "true threats" or "fighting words" exceptions. Of course, neither of those would apply to the President making policy proposals unless he said something like "I'm going to deploy the US Military to kill Jeff."


Freedom of speech does not include the right: ..."To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., “[S]hout[ing] ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”).
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). "


I mean, he's not shouting "fire", but there have been cases where his speech has clearly incited violence.

Yes, I am aware these are extremist cases. No, this list is not exhaustive.


Except for the speech to qualify for that, it has to be very specific and intentional to the resulting action. Yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater is done with the intent of creating a panic. Saying "I think that <people we don't like> should be put out of our misery" to a crowd can be seen as a call to action and *might* qualify (depending on how seriously or sarcastically the statement is made). Simply expressing an opinion different than someone else, or some other group, and having some nut job somewhere decide on his own to take action against that person or group does *not* fall into this category. Ever. Otherwise, it's impossible to protect any speech at all. You could publicly say something like "I'm not a fan of the Patriots", and someone somewhere writes a manifesto in his basement that he's been inspired by your words to go assassinate member of the team, and by your rules, you'd be guilty of that crime somehow.

That's not how concepts of free speech work. There has to be an actual reasonable belief that the speech you made was intended with the result of inciting the harmful outcome for that to be true. And that's actually a pretty high standard to meet legally.

Quote:
My point is, when we see him encouraging certain groups of people exercising their 1A right to peacefully assemble (such as the extremely armed white groups in Michigan during the first wave of COVID) while insulting and belittling other groups (calling BLM protesters "thugs"), he may not be saying, "Shoot the protesters", but that's the message he's conveying.


Except you're trying to define this based on political alignment rather than the actions of the people involved. The Michigan protesters, "heavily armed" or not, were actually peaceful. How many buildings were burned down? How many cars destroyed? How many people injured during those protests? Zero, right?

While most in the BLM protests are peaceful, not all are, and certainly those who are rioting and looting (regardless of actual ideology) are *not* peaceful. Those were the people Trump was talking about. So it's not a case of defending one "side" and opposing the other. It's about opposing violence. Period. Not sure why this is such a hard concept. When did we lose the ability to judge people by their actions instead of their skin color, political orientation, sexual orientation, religion, etc?

Judge by actions and it all makes a lot more sense.

Edited, Jun 15th 2020 5:45pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#22 Jun 16 2020 at 6:32 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Gbaji, don't be ridiculous. Trump doesn't oppose violence.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#23 Jun 16 2020 at 11:20 AM Rating: Excellent
*
63 posts
gbaji wrote:
While most in the BLM protests are peaceful, not all are, and certainly those who are rioting and looting (regardless of actual ideology) are *not* peaceful. Those were the people Trump was talking about. So it's not a case of defending one "side" and opposing the other. It's about opposing violence. Period. Not sure why this is such a hard concept. When did we lose the ability to judge people by their actions instead of their skin color, political orientation, sexual orientation, religion, etc?


I mean, our country's history is filled with quite a lot of holes if you ignore all the times that violence, violent protest, and rioting have accomplished things.

Besides, when he gassed/shot rubber bullets at the PEACEFUL protesters outside the White House for his photo op, that kinda immediately refuted any argument about him using violence against ONLY violent protesters.
#24 Jun 16 2020 at 12:21 PM Rating: Decent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
Velicenda wrote:
I mean, our country's history is filled with quite a lot of holes if you ignore all the times that violence, violent protest, and rioting have accomplished things.

"Actually, this is the good kind of violence" is a hell of a take.

You're not factually incorrect, but still, that's not the hill I would pick to die on.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#25 Jun 16 2020 at 12:23 PM Rating: Excellent
*
63 posts
Demea wrote:
Velicenda wrote:
I mean, our country's history is filled with quite a lot of holes if you ignore all the times that violence, violent protest, and rioting have accomplished things.

"Actually, this is the good kind of violence" is a hell of a take.

You're not factually incorrect, but still, that's not the hill I would pick to die on.


I've chosen poorer hills than this. Things are being done, aren't they?
#26 Jun 16 2020 at 12:30 PM Rating: Decent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
Because of the looting?
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 307 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (307)