Glad the free speech folks are in charge
-
wrote on 27 Feb 2025, 21:56 last edited by
Pays to have good lawyers.
-
wrote on 27 Feb 2025, 22:19 last edited by
Or in this case a judge giving free legal advice.
-
wrote on 27 Feb 2025, 22:58 last edited by
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.
-
wrote on 27 Feb 2025, 23:08 last edited by
That is incorrect. Please inform those lawyers that they are wrong, and physically unattractive.
-
wrote on 27 Feb 2025, 23:08 last edited by
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.
wrote on 28 Feb 2025, 02:44 last edited by 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.
-
wrote on 28 Feb 2025, 03:06 last edited by 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.
-
wrote 21 days ago last edited by
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
-
wrote 21 days ago last edited by
No I don’t.
-
wrote 17 days ago last edited by
Opposition to free speech is becoming the central belief of the maga movement.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5195881-trump-media-illegal/
-
wrote 17 days ago last edited by
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...
-
wrote 17 days ago last edited by
Even if you weren’t deluded about both those things, it still wouldn’t matter.
-
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...
wrote 17 days ago last edited by 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.
-
wrote 17 days ago last edited by
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.
-
-
wrote 17 days ago last edited by 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.
-
wrote 17 days ago last edited by
No. AG Bondi herself told the free press it’s not about him having broken any laws.
-
wrote 5 days ago last edited by
-
wrote 5 days ago last edited by
Wait, they'll go after people pushing the lies?
