Glad the free speech folks are in charge
-
Trump’s attorney gave it up in his first public statement.
-
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.
@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.
-
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.
-
When you lose Matt Taibbi…
https://www.racket.news/p/if-trump-blows-it-on-speech-the-world
-
When you lose Matt Taibbi…
https://www.racket.news/p/if-trump-blows-it-on-speech-the-world
-
Opposition to free speech is becoming the central belief of the maga movement.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5195881-trump-media-illegal/
-
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...
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
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...
@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.
-
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:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
-
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.
-
What we really need is for them to make libel illegal. I know, that's kind of controversial, because it would mean there'd be lawsuits and stuff.
I don't know if you Americans are familiar with the concept of lawsuits, it probably has never happened over here.
I was only joking
