Glad the free speech folks are in charge

[Horace]

@taiwan_girl He can always be framed that way, and I suspect he is happy to be underestimated. It's part of his power. Keep it up.

[Jolly]

@taiwan_girl said in Glad the free speech folks are in charge:

@Horace said in Glad the free speech folks are in charge:

It's also easy to imagine that this is more Trump flooding the zone. If this is a shiny object for the media to concentrate on, and they fall for the bait, that's their choice.

I think that the only thing that President Trump is thinking of is that somebody or organization made him mad. In my mind, he is quite vindictive, regardless of weather or not if someone is actually doing something against him. He just has to think that is the case.

Some of the best effective politicians I've ever seen, could be vindictive assholes. Pelosi, anyone?

[jon-nyc]

@Horace said in Glad the free speech folks are in charge:

The AP is reporting that the AP is suing the press secretary.

There’s been movement on this. The judge, a Trump appointee, refused APs request for a TRO but then outright told the administration that the law and precedent is not on their side in this matter, setting some early dates for a preliminary injunction hearing.

Then he gave them an out. Musing out loud, he said it would be different if they hadn’t outsourced press attendance decisions to the WH Correspondents Association.

So the administration announced the following day that they are revoking the WHCA’s century-old role in managing the rotating pool of reporters that has access to small spaces like AF1 and the Oval Office.

[Jolly]

Pays to have good lawyers.

[jon-nyc]

Or in this case a judge giving free legal advice.

[Tom-K]

FWIW, the lawyers I hang out with (granted: in a liquored up state) think that this is a slam dunk for the AP. Even the SCOTUS will decide for them.

[Horace]

That is incorrect. Please inform those lawyers that they are wrong, and physically unattractive.

[LuFins Dad]

Trump’s attorney gave it up in his first public statement.

[jon-nyc]

@Tom-K said in Glad the free speech folks are in charge:

FWIW, the lawyers I hang out with (granted: in a liquored up state) think that this is a slam dunk for the AP. Even the SCOTUS will decide for them.

The Trump appointed judge basically told Trumps team that. But then he offered them a potential out. Though it's unclear to me whenever making the change ex-post will help. We'll see.

[Horace]

I don't know what the whitehouse correspondent's association has to do with the legalities of the situation, but my intuitive reactions have been based on the decisions about who to ration the seats to, were made internally within the executive branch. maybe my intuitions would have been correct, if that were the case.

[jon-nyc]

When you lose Matt Taibbi…

https://www.racket.news/p/if-trump-blows-it-on-speech-the-world

[Horace]

@jon-nyc Don't tell me you subscribe to Taibbi.

[jon-nyc]

No I don’t.

[jon-nyc]

Opposition to free speech is becoming the central belief of the maga movement.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5195881-trump-media-illegal/

[Jolly]

Opposition to coordinated media acting as a public relations arm of the Democrats is what he was talking about.

The Russia Hoax and Hunter's Laptop come to mind...

[jon-nyc]

Even if you weren’t deluded about both those things, it still wouldn’t matter.

[jon-nyc]

Tiberius was right. Most people don’t want freedom. They want a kind master. That’s certainly the case, to a person, with the maga movement.

[jon-nyc]

@Jolly said in Glad the free speech folks are in charge:

Opposition to coordinated media acting as a public relations arm of the Democrats is what he was talking about.

When Fox execs had open conversations deciding to knowingly repeat Trump’s election lies rather than tell the truth and anger the credulous idiots that are the maga base, they were not breaking any laws. Their malicious greed-driven partisan lies were 100% protected by the 1A. The only reason it cost them almost $1B and Tucker his career was because they defamed a private party in the process.

[LuFins Dad]

I’ll agree regarding the emergency authorizations excepting the border. That had reached and surpassed an emergency.

If the other part of the free speech argument is the Columbia dude, this isn’t about free speech. The dude is welcome to say whatever he likes so long as:

1. he is not saying anything that is an incitement to lawless action. I think we would all agree that what he was saying on the megaphone was an incitement to violence and illegal trespass. And without the appropriate permits, even speaking to the group was lawless action.

2. The speech doesn’t contain “fighting words” or words and actions intended to provoke a violent reaction. Again, I believe we can all agree that he tried to provoke Jewish Students to violence.

3. The speech contains “true threats” defined by the courts as

the federal Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals applied a five-factor test to determine whether speech constitutes a true threat, including: (i) the reaction of the recipient of the threat and of other listeners; (ii) whether the threat was conditional; (iii) whether the threat was communicated directly to its victim; (iv) whether the maker of the threat had made similar statements to the victim in the past; and (v) whether the victim had reason to believe that the maker of the threat had a propensity to engage in violence.

I think we can all reasonably agree that the Jewish students on the campus felt there was a sincere true threats.

[xenon]

There’s a difference between connecting dots and specific actual threats made by a specific person.

What I mean by that is, compare this to the Skokie Nazis. Nazis think Jews should be killed. Hamas thinks Israelis should be killed. The Skokie Nazis were not making specify threats though - even the position of Nazis is clear.

But that alone isn’t enough to be a specific threat. Is there an allegation that Khalil made specific threats against other students? Genuine question.