House Impeachment Threatens Freedom of Speech

Again, you’re dodging the question

How can Dominion sue Donald Trump if the constitution protects his lie ?

It’s a simple question

 

No it doesn’t. If it did Dominion would not be able to sue Donald Trump.

If the first amendment protected lies, then Dominion would literally have no case. All trump and Rudy would have to do is assert their first amendment right to “lie” and the case would be tossed. But they cant, as I have shown in many other posts....if the first amendment protected lies, Libel and Slander laws would be unconstitutional

 

The Supreme Court has ruled that you cannot lie in the political arena, if you know what your saying is a lie:

 

Read NYT vs Sullivan

 

See NYT vs Sullivan

 

I would place much of the blame on the RNC and their failure to vet him properly. If the Party's can't do a proper vetting, they've lost much of their usefulness.

 

Read NYT vs Sullivan. The court held that you do not have the right to lie if you know what your saying is a lie. Trump knew full well, as did Rudy, that they had no evidence of voting fraud. 60 different judges actually saw that, so their is no way that they didn’t know. Throwing lies like spaghetti against a wall, does not make them constitutional.

At the end of the day I believe that Dominion will prevail. The only way they dont, is by arguing the protections of the office of the President as protection.

 

Having a hard time comprehending the difference between not having a right to suppress speech and the fact that harmful speech can be illegal?

The amendment does not say that speech must comply with any rule- just that no law can be made to abridge the right of free speech.
The second amendment says the right to carry a weapon shall not be infringed, too- but if you shoot someone with it, you have committed a crime- but NOT a constitutional violation.
Try that concept on for size and see if you can figure it out.

 

Snicker.
Cite / copy / please federal law with regard to the incitement of insurrection
Cite / copy / paste the text of Trump's statements you believe are to that effect.
Demonstrate how said statements are in violation of said federal law.

 

Do you know what the main danger is when you repeat opinions as though they were factual and do it enough to cause extreme anger in those who hear it regularly? It can lead to a general agreement that certain groups of people are deserving of sanction, loss. THEN those people proceed to inflict that on others. Not a single person was arrested at the Capitol for brandishing or discharging a weapon. What you said is a lie and when lots of people begin adding little slanders to the story it can lead to a bunch of misinformed but self-righteous people looking to inflict punishment.

 

You mean like Trump and Co spreading lies about the elections results.

 

And then there's MSDNC, et al, who issue their usual talking points each day to be parroted here by their useful idiots.
Good to see you agree: The 1st Amendment -does- protect the right to lie, so long as said lie does not harm someone.

 

It would be defined and prosecuted on a random and often political basis.

When something goes into the "Terrorism" category - the regular rules do not apply - now sure how to make this more clear - as I think here is the disconnect.

For all the other crimes you mention - your individual liberties are not suspended - you still matter as a human and a citizen. You can't be sent to "Gitmo" for enhanced interrogation .. or to Syria - extra ordinary rendition - and be interrogated in more inventive ways - or should we say "The old Fashioned way" - when all else fails .. the Cattle Prod !

Have I managed to clarify things a bit ?

 

He'll be glad to hear that, although GITMO is probably closer to Mar-a-Lago than that maximum security federal prison in Colorado, no? You know, for Melania's conjugal visits.

 

What does what "He Thinks" have to do with anything ? - but thanks for trying

 

Oh...no...I think he hears, but no, I don't think he thinks.

 

You don't need any court's approval to hold a political rally are make a political declaration.

 

Agreed. However, note that many if not most state constitutions are a literary abomination (like my state, Texas), and unwritten constitutions don't count for anything.

 

The only purpose of a political party is to maintain political power for itself. Political parties aren't really useful at all except for candidates for election. But they are certainly corrupt. Usefulness. That cracked me up.

 

IIRC Trump was not the one who called out the guard, but in any case is there something wrong with a president (or anyone) considering and discussing actions before taking action???

 

Conjugal visits? With who, a prison guard? You don't really think she allows the orange hairball anywhere near her vajayjay, do you?

 

Among the many abominations residing in TX it's no surprise the state constitution is one of them.

 

There is a lot of evidence of voter fraud so nobody told a lie about it. i have no idea how the suit will end. Court cases are notoriously difficult to predict. You could be right.

I didn't read the case but I doubt seriously that it concludes what you say it does. There aren't any exceptions to the first amendment. Government simply cannot interfere with free speech, no matter the content of the speech. The speech may carry consequences but government can't get in its way.