House Impeachment Threatens Freedom of Speech

That is correct but, as I said, a bad interpretation of the Constitution does not constitute a lie in any way shape or form. SCOTUS refused to hear cases on a timely basis and therefore did not rule one way or another. The Pennsylvania supreme court rejected the Trump team's allegation that the Pennsylvania supreme court ruled illegally -- DUH!!!

 

If the Governors certified the electoral vote and you can't receive relief in either the courts or Congress...it's over.

 

I have refuted over and over and over. You weren't paying attention.

 

So what your saying is that its not protected.

Ok, thanks

 

Well, yes. That's the way it works. And since 2017 followed up immediately with House impeachment actions.

 

No I'm saying I'm finished jousting with you.

 

The initial Democratic impeachment motion went no where. The successful impeachments followed the Ukrainian fiasco and the attempt to overturn the last election.

 

This is all true. I just said that impeachment actions immediately follows the election since 2017.

If Trump had won, impeachment hearings would have begun by at least April -- not immediate but close enough.

 

Whatever the result of this week's Senate impeachment trial, his popularity is likely to fall substantially over the next two years with the backload of legal and financial problems he faces. If the Republican Party wants to go down with the ship that's up to them.

 

I disagree. I think his popularity and his base will grow, though not by a lot. His popularity grew after his first impeachment, as did Clinton's. Trump haters and those suffering from TDS will likely decrease but by no more than a bit.

 

Believe in whatever you want to. You're in the minority

 

It does, so long as said lie does not harm someone or place them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.
The court case -you- cited proves this to be true.

 

That's NOT what it says. Did you even read the case?
Further, the case deals with the press making false statements, not politicians or private citizens -- you cannot soundly assume that a ruling which deals with actions taken by X also apply to actions taken by Y and Z.

It does not matter how many times you repeat this falsehood, it remains a falsehood.
The 1st Amendment, however, protects your right to repeat said falsehood.

 

No. It only proves the 1st Amendment does not protect lies that harm other people.

 

You choose to be wrong.

In New York Times v Sullivan (1964), the Court extended First Amendment protection to false statements of fact in a defamation suit. The Court held such statements, when made about about a public official, could not be the basis for awarding damages, at least without evidence that the false statements either were made recklessly or with knowledge of their falsity. The Court suggested that, while false statements contribute nothing of value to political discourse, they need protection to allow "breathing room" for statements that are true. Without this protection, the Court noted, true statements might not be made either out of a fear that the speaker could be later proven wrong, or that a biased jury might find the statements to be untrue even when they are not. While the Court's majority refused to extend protection to deliberate lies, three justices would have gone further and held that public officials and public affairs can be discussed "with impunity." Justices Black and Douglas argued that the power of government to use any law to impose damages is "precisely nil." Justice Goldberg agreed, suggesting that the defense of a public official against "deliberate misstatements" was "counterargument and education."

Deliberate misstatements of fact were at issue in Hustler Magazine v Falwell (198. Hustler magazine had stated that a prominent fundamentalist minister, Jerry Falwell, had drunken sex with his mother in an outhouse. Although the Court noted that "false statements of fact are particularly valueless," it drew a distinction between false statements not meant or likely to be believed by readers and other false statements of fact. The Court held that First Amendment prohibited awarding damages for false statements about public figures that cannot reasonably be believed. Satire and parody often involve false statements, and so long as persons would not take the statements to be true, they cannot be the basis for a tort action.

Rickert v Washington, a 2007 decision of the Washington Supreme Court, considered whether a political candidate could be punished for telling deliberate lies about her opponent in a political campaign. Voting 5 to 4, the court held that Marilou Rickert, a Green Party candidate for the State Senate, could not be fined for falsely claiming in a campaign broshure that one of her opponents "voted to close a facility for the developmentally challenged." The Court's majority said the state law "naively assumes that the government is capable of correctly and consistently negotiating the thin line between fact and opinion in political speech."

United States v Alvarez (2012) raised the question of whether the First Amendment allowed prosecution of a newly elected member of a California water board who introduced himself to a group of citizen as a 25-year Marine veteran who had been "awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor." Alvarez was prosecuted under the Stolen Valor Act which authorizes imprisonment for anyone who "falsely represents himself or herself...to have been awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the Armed Forces of the United States." The Supreme Court, on a 6 to 3 vote, affirmed the Ninth Circuit decision overturning Alvarez's conviction. Justice Kennedy (joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor) applied strict scrutiny to the law and noted that content-based restrictions on speech were almost always unconstitutional. Justices Breyer and Kagan, concurring, said intermediate scrutiny should apply to false statements, but that the Stolen Valor Act must fall, because it applied too broadly, even to false claims made to family and friends in private, for example. The two concurring justices' opinion left open the possibility that Congress might redraft a narrower statute that could be upheld. Justices Alito, Scalia, and Thomas dissented.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lying.html

 

No it doesn't. You cat have a limitation a "right" unless it is specified in the amendment. Which it isn't. The First amendment doesn't say "the right to free speech, unless it harms someone".

The simple fact that Dominion can sue Trump proves that the first amendment doesn't do that

 

See post 265. You're wrong.

 

The dominion lawsuit LITERALLY is suing Rudy Guilliani, not the press.

You keep making claims that have no basis in fact.

 

See post 265. You're wrong.

 

Epoch times is not a reliable source.

 

It does, but it doesn't protect the right to incite violence, such as shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre.

 

Give me one prominent democrat who led a crowd of people to attack the capitol resulting in 5 - 7 deaths.

Just one. I'll be waiting.

 

.

Lying is protected , but not criminal lying ( answering questions by the FBI, or police, etc ).

What is not protected is speech that incites violence, bodily harm, or speech that harms ( abusive speech, etc )

Trump lied, but what he lied about was done over a period of months which inflamed passions, which rose, over time, to manifest in that attack of the capitol which resulted in harm and death. That kind of speech isn't protected, but it will have to be litigated to determine it's lawfulness.

 

The first amendment gives you the right to say what you want, but it does not protect against the consequences of that speech. The thread was "the first amendment protects the right to lie", which it clearly does not

 

Libel laws say that it does not protect the right to lie. All due respect, but Trump is being sued for lying about Dominion, if the first amendment protects that, they could not sue him. The first amendment guarantees his right to say anything, but it does not protect against the consequences of that , hence it does not protect the lie.