Inexcusable
-
@George-K said in Inexcusable:
Schumer.
Somehow I doubt his analogy of whatever happens outside his house "3 or 4 times a week", to what is going on outside the judges' homes, would check out.
wrote on 11 May 2022, 00:39 last edited by@Horace said in Inexcusable:
Somehow I doubt his analogy to whatever happens outside his house "3 or 4 times a week", to what is going on outside the judges' homes, would check out.
You're such a skeptic.
I eagerly await the hundreds of videos of the protestors outside of Senator Schumer's home. He's been in the Senate since 1999 - 23 years, or, about 1100 weeks.
So, according to the senator, there have been at least 3000 protests at his home. Surely there must be at least 100 videos documenting this.
-
Calling for assassination of SCOTUS Justice is OK with Twitter.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=
I reported the following tweet to Twitter, because it explicitly called for Supreme Court justices to be assassinated:
The cartoon in question also called for the assassination of justices, albeit with a tiny fig leaf of deniability:
The response I got from Twitter regarding the explicit call for assassination: sorry, doesn’t violate our terms of service!
https://patterico.com/app/uploads/2022/05/Screen-Shot-2022-05-09-at-8.28.32-AM-450x233.png
The email included a helpful list of material that would violate the terms of service. It includes a prohibition on, not just threats, celebrations of violence, and promoting terrorism or violent extremism, but also wishing harm on someone:
https://patterico.com/app/uploads/2022/05/Screen-Shot-2022-05-09-at-8.28.40-AM-392x450.png
This is a total joke. I see a lot of people saying “Elon Musk will fix this!” but his proposed standard is to allow anything that passes First Amendment muster, and this probably would. That said, apparently the people doing the moderation are useless and the Elon Musk standard already prevails, unless you misgender someone. So Elon really wouldn’t hurt much.
Meanwhile, people are protesting outside the homes of Justices Kavanaugh and Roberts in an effort to influence their votes, which is illegal under a statute that is likely constitutional.
This is a dangerous environment and it is why the Court needs to get the abortion issue out of the courts and into the legislatures. Public influence campaigns are appropriate for legislators. Not for judges. They are supposed to interpret the law. Period.
I plan to have much more to say about this.
wrote on 11 May 2022, 00:58 last edited by Axtremus 5 Nov 2022, 01:12@George-K said in Inexcusable:
Calling for assassination of SCOTUS Justice is OK with Twitter.
Folks who remain employed by Twitter are probably busy trying to figure out what Elon wants, so the
censorscommunity standards reviewers maybe more confused and more conflicted while Twitter works through this transition.Incidentally, how would you like Elon to deal with something like this being posted on Twitter?
-
@George-K said in Inexcusable:
Calling for assassination of SCOTUS Justice is OK with Twitter.
Folks who remain employed by Twitter are probably busy trying to figure out what Elon wants, so the
censorscommunity standards reviewers maybe more confused and more conflicted while Twitter works through this transition.Incidentally, how would you like Elon to deal with something like this being posted on Twitter?
wrote on 11 May 2022, 01:05 last edited by@Axtremus said in Inexcusable:
Folks who remain employed by Twitter are probably busy trying to figure out what Elon wants, so the
censorscommunity standards reviewers maybe more confused and more conflicted while Twitter works through this transition.So, distraction on the job is sufficient reason for not doing it.
"Oh, I was worried about the new CEO at the hospital. Sorry if I forgot to turn on the oxygen."
Incidentally, how would you like Elon to deal something like this being posted on Twitter?
Not really sure. THere's SO much BS on all social media platforms, so I'll decline to comment - for now. My understanding is that Trump was banned for posting "conspiracy" theories. Will Twitter ban the new WH PresSec?
This person called for violence against a SCOTUS Justice. Is this inexcusable? Twitter seems (for now) to think not.
Is a "Call to arms" a green light for violence, insurrection?
Like I said, let's see how it plays out in a year or so.
-
@Axtremus said in Inexcusable:
Folks who remain employed by Twitter are probably busy trying to figure out what Elon wants, so the
censorscommunity standards reviewers maybe more confused and more conflicted while Twitter works through this transition.So, distraction on the job is sufficient reason for not doing it.
"Oh, I was worried about the new CEO at the hospital. Sorry if I forgot to turn on the oxygen."
Incidentally, how would you like Elon to deal something like this being posted on Twitter?
Not really sure. THere's SO much BS on all social media platforms, so I'll decline to comment - for now. My understanding is that Trump was banned for posting "conspiracy" theories. Will Twitter ban the new WH PresSec?
This person called for violence against a SCOTUS Justice. Is this inexcusable? Twitter seems (for now) to think not.
Is a "Call to arms" a green light for violence, insurrection?
Like I said, let's see how it plays out in a year or so.
wrote on 11 May 2022, 01:11 last edited by@George-K said in Inexcusable:
@Axtremus said in Inexcusable:
Folks who remain employed by Twitter are probably busy trying to figure out what Elon wants, so the
censorscommunity standards reviewers maybe more confused and more conflicted while Twitter works through this transition.So, distraction on the job is sufficient reason for not doing it.
Not distraction, but confusion -- Twitter has a new owner coming in saying he wants to change the rules for Twitter, it's understandable that it might take a while for all of Twitter to catch up to what the new boss' new rules are.
-
wrote on 11 May 2022, 17:08 last edited by
-
wrote on 11 May 2022, 17:12 last edited by
I think a nice impeachment of an Attorney General might get the attention of a few folks. This is one I could get behind, as long as it was stressed during the hearings that nobody is above the law and all citizens should be treated equally,
-
wrote on 11 May 2022, 17:34 last edited by
Lock him up
-
wrote on 11 May 2022, 17:46 last edited by
Strongly worded letter followed yet again.
-
wrote on 11 May 2022, 22:07 last edited by
@jon-nyc said in Inexcusable:
Strongly worded letter followed yet again.
Here's yer strongly-worded letter.
-
wrote on 11 May 2022, 22:17 last edited by
I think the first one was the stronglier worded letter. It actually brought up impeachment.
-
I think the first one was the stronglier worded letter. It actually brought up impeachment.
wrote on 11 May 2022, 22:24 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Inexcusable:
I think the first one was the stronglier worded letter. It actually brought up impeachment.
Yeah, I noticed that.
Interesting that Cotton is calling for the AG to (cough) enforce the laws, under the threat of impeachment. There were a lot of people unhappy with Holder, but I don't recall such language. Of course, that might just because I'm an old geezer and my memory's failing.
For the sake of discussion, if the GOP takes the House in November, what is the likelihood that Garland will be impeached?
(too lazy to look it up)
Is the standard for conviction the same as impeachment and removal from office as the President?
-
wrote on 12 May 2022, 00:28 last edited by
Same.
-
wrote on 12 May 2022, 00:35 last edited by
@Jolly said in Inexcusable:
Same.
Well, convicting Garland will never happen, then. I suppose the best one could hope for is an asterisk.
-
wrote on 12 May 2022, 01:03 last edited by
Seems to be the thing to do nowadays...
-
wrote on 12 May 2022, 13:25 last edited by
Probably the best piece I have heard on the subject of protests at homes. Figures it would come from National Review..
-
wrote on 12 May 2022, 13:41 last edited by
One thing I have a minor disagreement with is here:
It is right that the Justice Department is prosecuting the crimes associated with January 6, but, for all the talk of insurrection, the actual charges being levied against offenders from that day include illegal . . . parading. We do not mean to trivialize January 6 — we mean to say that the federal government under the Biden administration has exactly the same duty to protect the Supreme Court that the federal government under the Trump administration had to protect Congress.
The difference is in the law. There is no federal law prohibiting demonstrations in front of Congress. It happens ALL the time. There is no federal law prohibiting demonstrations in front of the homes of Congress' members (as reprehensible as it is to "get in their faces." Chuck Schumer claims that it happens at his home 4 times a week.
The statute regarding demonstrating in front of the residence of a member of the judiciary is quite clear. It's illegal. Period.
-
Probably the best piece I have heard on the subject of protests at homes. Figures it would come from National Review..
wrote on 12 May 2022, 13:41 last edited by@Mik said in Inexcusable:
Probably the best piece I have heard on the subject of protests at homes. Figures it would come from National Review..
Good piece.
-
wrote on 12 May 2022, 13:49 last edited by Doctor Phibes 5 Dec 2022, 13:50
Yes, the bottom line is that protesting on a regular street is letting everybody know you're unhappy and exercising your right to free speech. Protesting outside somebody's house is intimidation.
I also feel that haranguing members of the public who are visiting an abortion clinic can cross the line into intimidation. Maybe not illegal, but intimidation nevertheless.
-
Yes, the bottom line is that protesting on a regular street is letting everybody know you're unhappy and exercising your right to free speech. Protesting outside somebody's house is intimidation.
I also feel that haranguing members of the public who are visiting an abortion clinic can cross the line into intimidation. Maybe not illegal, but intimidation nevertheless.
wrote on 12 May 2022, 15:17 last edited by@Doctor-Phibes said in Inexcusable:
Yes, the bottom line is that protesting on a regular street is letting everybody know you're unhappy and exercising your right to free speech. Protesting outside somebody's house is intimidation.
I also feel that haranguing members of the public who are visiting an abortion clinic can cross the line into intimidation. Maybe not illegal, but intimidation nevertheless.
Under Clinton in 1994 the Federal Government passed laws prohibiting obstruction of access to abortuaries.
Prohibited
§ 248. Freedom of access to clinic entrances: (a) Prohibited activities.--Whoever-- (1) by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person because that person is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from, obtaining or providing reproductive health services [19]
The following behaviors have especially to do with reproductive health care clinics but can also be applied to places of worship:[19][17]
Blocking a person’s access to the entrance of a facility Impairing cars from entering and/or exiting a facility Physically stopping people as they are trying to walk toward an entrance or through a parking lot Making it difficult or dangerous to get in and/or out of a facility Trespassing on the property of a facility Committing any act of violence on a clinic employee, escort or patient Vandalism Threats of violence Stalking a clinic employee or reproductive health care provider Arson or threats of arson Bombings or bomb threats Intimidation Not prohibited
The following behaviors are not prohibited because they are protected under the First Amendment right to free speech:[19][17]
Protesting outside of clinics Distributing literature Carrying signs Shouting (as long as no threats are made) Singing hymns Counseling -
@Doctor-Phibes said in Inexcusable:
Yes, the bottom line is that protesting on a regular street is letting everybody know you're unhappy and exercising your right to free speech. Protesting outside somebody's house is intimidation.
I also feel that haranguing members of the public who are visiting an abortion clinic can cross the line into intimidation. Maybe not illegal, but intimidation nevertheless.
Under Clinton in 1994 the Federal Government passed laws prohibiting obstruction of access to abortuaries.
Prohibited
§ 248. Freedom of access to clinic entrances: (a) Prohibited activities.--Whoever-- (1) by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person because that person is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from, obtaining or providing reproductive health services [19]
The following behaviors have especially to do with reproductive health care clinics but can also be applied to places of worship:[19][17]
Blocking a person’s access to the entrance of a facility Impairing cars from entering and/or exiting a facility Physically stopping people as they are trying to walk toward an entrance or through a parking lot Making it difficult or dangerous to get in and/or out of a facility Trespassing on the property of a facility Committing any act of violence on a clinic employee, escort or patient Vandalism Threats of violence Stalking a clinic employee or reproductive health care provider Arson or threats of arson Bombings or bomb threats IntimidationNot prohibited
The following behaviors are not prohibited because they are protected under the First Amendment right to free speech:[19][17]
Protesting outside of clinics Distributing literature Carrying signs Shouting (as long as no threats are made) Singing hymns Counselingwrote on 12 May 2022, 15:21 last edited by Doctor Phibes 5 Dec 2022, 15:21@Ivorythumper 'Intimidation' can get a little tricky to prove or disprove.
Is shouting 'MURDERER' at a pregnant woman going into a clinic considered intimidation? There's no threat involved.
