House Impeachment Threatens Freedom of Speech

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by RodB, Feb 5, 2021.

  1. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    22,358
    Likes Received:
    11,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    https://www.theepochtimes.com/house...dium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2021-02-04-2

    The Article of Impeachment (which has multiple counts in violation of the congressional rules of impeachment) says that Trump does not have 1st amendment rights of speech if Congress doesn't approve of the speech. That of course lays the groundwork to extend the concept beyond Trump to anybody.

    It went further by saying the freedom of speech does not cover speech that attacks our "democratic processes." Again, if congress or the government does not like what you are saying, you no longer have the freedom to say it.

    Welcome to authoritarian government.
     
    Esdraelon, Xyce, Libhater and 3 others like this.
  2. grapeape

    grapeape Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2015
    Messages:
    16,801
    Likes Received:
    9,320
    Trophy Points:
    113
    JFC. More of this ridiculous "first amendment" crap

    For the last time, The constitution does NOT protect the right to lie. Full stop !
     
    bigfella, cd8ed, kiwimac and 4 others like this.
  3. Andrew Jackson

    Andrew Jackson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2016
    Messages:
    48,444
    Likes Received:
    32,202
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is an OPINION Article.

    It is a Dershowitz OPINION.

    From the OP Link:

    Writing in an op-ed for The Hill, Dershowitz made a case .

    Anyway, I completely disagree with Dershowitz's Opinion.

    His view of the 1st Amendment is his OPINION (Only), and he obviously doesn't know what he is talking about.

    Dershowitz isn't the sharpest tool (in tbe legal shed) to start with.

    Having made a career defenfing Murderers (like Klaus and OJ) and Treasonous Career Criminals (like Donald Trump).

    If an Extreme RW Parody Site (like the Epoch Times) is using Dershowitz for Confirmation Bias, it is clear that Dershowitz's OPINION is Complete BS.

    Besides, Everybody KNOWS that the 1st Amendment is "Not Absolute".

    (You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, etc.)

    Dershowitz Opinion = FAIL.
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2021
    Indlib likes this.
  4. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    28,014
    Likes Received:
    19,305
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You would be far from correct. I once caught a fish this big.

    Silence is golden.
    Duct tape is silver.
     
    Esdraelon, GrayMan and ButterBalls like this.
  5. Pixie

    Pixie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2021
    Messages:
    7,224
    Likes Received:
    2,408
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Freedom of speech does not cover the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre.
    Nor does it allow incitement by Muslim Imams, football crowds making monkey noises at games or encouraging crowds of armed people to overturn an election result.
     
    dairyair and kiwimac like this.
  6. stone6

    stone6 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    9,281
    Likes Received:
    2,780
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You're forgetting the "incitement" part. Generally, free speech is limited to speech that will NOT incite a crime. If the speech can be tied to a crime and the prosecution can show that the speech led directly to the commission of that crime, then you may become a part of that crime yourself. It can be tough to prove in a court of law. The Senate trial is not a "court of law," and the maximum punishment they may deliver is removal from office and prohibition from future office holding. Any punishment beyond that would have to come from a Grand Jury indictment and a trial in a criminal court. According to the FBI, that investigation of the Capitol riot is now underway and arrests are being made. Fortunately, many of the rioters posed for videos of their crimes. The hard part will be proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the former President's Ellipse speech was to intentionally incite the Capitol riot. Basically two ways to do that: 1) a confession on his part...and some of his own recorded words, tweets and videos may do that...or 2) overwhelming circumstantial or indirect evidence by the testimony of others that was his intent...such as a pre-speech plan to incite the storming of the Capitol, and a plot to carry it out. Regarding the latter, a method of showing that intent may be via establishing a pattern of behavior of similar behavior, in the past.

    Indicting a former sitting President, who has just lost an election, but had 74 million people vote for him, is a touchy issue. You may be sure that an investigation preceding a criminal indictment will proceed very, very carefully and consequently very slowly as well.
     
    ChiCowboy likes this.
  7. Jiminy

    Jiminy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2016
    Messages:
    7,500
    Likes Received:
    8,618
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The radical right is extremely supportive of Marjorie Taylor Greene and her neo-fascist agenda of an authoritarian government that rejects the basic American belief of liberty and justice for all. Greene wasn't kicked off of her House assignments just for the defense of lunacy, but for her threats of violence against her fellow legislators
    Marjorie Taylor Greene indicated support for executing prominent Democrats in 2018 and 2019 before running for Congress
    https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/26/politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-democrats-violence/index.html
    [​IMG]
     
    stone6 likes this.
  8. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    56,560
    Likes Received:
    16,652
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Then it does not protect anything those governing deem to be a lie which is to say it doesn't protect anything.
     
    HockeyDad likes this.
  9. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    56,560
    Likes Received:
    16,652
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But there was no such incitement, in fact several prominent Democrats have come far closer to incitement to violence than Trump.

    Let's be clear the Sham and tacitly illegal impeachment of DJ Trump has nothing to do with justice and everything to do with the abject fear and loathing of Donald Trump by the Neocons and Democrats.
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2021
    altmiddle and HockeyDad like this.
  10. 61falcon

    61falcon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    21,436
    Likes Received:
    12,227
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Dirty Donald wasn't Joe **** the rag man, he was the PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES and therefore a higher standard is expected of him than of an average citizen. When the president of the country assembles a crowd of his followers, as he did, then deliberately subjects them to heated speech from several speakers ending with his own urging them to "fight like hell" for their country. His and those who preceded him actions and speeches had the exact effect on the crowd they were looking for..
     
    freedom8, MJ Davies, kiwimac and 3 others like this.
  11. stone6

    stone6 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    9,281
    Likes Received:
    2,780
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Why do you think Trump's second impeachment was "tacitly illegal?" On incitement, Trump incited the crowd in three ways: 1) he told them that Pence had the power to return the certified electoral votes back to the states. Pence released a letter at the beginning of the joint session, he was presiding over, that he'd concluded he did not have such powers. If Pence had discussed the letter with Trump prior to the release and Trump went ahead with telling the crowd that Pence had that power, he was lying to bait the crowd. 2) Having mentioned Pence's "responsibility" some half dozen times, he then told the crowd to march on the Capitol for the purpose of "encouraging" Pence to do the right thing and that he would lead them. He did not lead them, nor (it now appears) was there any permit for the march. The National Park Service permit was strictly for the Ellipse speech. Instead, he specifically routed them down a public street (Pennsylvania Ave), an indication that he may have been aware that there was no permit to use the shorter way via the Mall. 3) The Trump speech lasted until 1:11 PM. Instead of leading the march to the Capitol, he presumably returned to the White House and watched the march on the Capitol and the joint session, both of which were being televised. With the Capitol crowd growing, at 1:26 PM, the Capitol Police ev actuate the Cannon House Office Building and the Madison Building of the Library of Congress. At 1:50 PM, the DC Police Commander, who is on the scene, declares a riot. At 1:51 PM, Alex Jones tries to direct the crowd to the east side of the Capitol, where he says they have a permit and a stage. The crowd however ignores him and sweeps past Capitol Police barriers on both sides of the Capitol. At 2:12 PM, the first rioters enter the Capitol. Inside, Pence is removed to safety and the Senate is called into recess. In the House, debate has begun on Cruz's motion. As the crowd advances throughout the building, Pelosi is removed to safety and the House adjourns at 2:20 PM. At 2:24 PM, more than an hour after his speech at the Ellipse, Trump tweets from the WH: "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulant or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth." At that point, Trump knew the Capitol had been breached. He knew that Pence was proceeding by law. He was at that moment inciting a riot, in hopes of forestalling the joint session's count. He was committing sedition and encouraging an insurrection. Fourteen minutes later, realizing that he's lost control of the situation, he tweets: "Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay Peaceful." But - and this will be significant at his trial - he does NOT ask that the crowd leave the Capitol Building. He tweets a similar plea at 3:13 PM. But still does not ask the rioters to leave the Capitol. It is not until 4:17 PM, after Biden has called upon him to demand an end to the Capitol siege, that Trump releases a prepared video telling the rioters that he loves them and that they are very special people (at this point, those in the Capitol are, to one degree or another, criminals), but they should go home and he continues to repeat that the election was stolen. As reinforcements begin to arrive and begin clearing the building, he tweets, at 6:01 PM: "These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously and viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly and unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love and in peace. Remember this day forever." The coup attempt is over. And, with love and in peace, he throws his own supporters under the bus and doesn't have the courage to continue to stand behind them. Pence was the one who showed courage.
     
    Badaboom and ChiCowboy like this.
  12. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your post is what is a complete fail - consisting of mostly Ad Hom Fallacy .. Attacking Dershowitz - (which is a laughable joke to begin with) - rather than addressing the constitutional issue at hand.

    Now I am clear on one thing here - that you don't know what Dershowitz is arguing .. and if you do - you certainly have not addressed this argument with anything but "I disagree" ... which is not an argument "Why do you disagree" - followed by something other than Ad hom fallacy and Strawman

    The strawman being your inference that Dershowitz stated that the 1st Amendment is absolute.

    So a massive Fail on 2 fronts .. followed by Projection - of your failure onto others.

    3 "Fails" 3 Strikes .. your out !!
     
  13. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    gsfdafsda fsafad
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2021
  14. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    56,560
    Likes Received:
    16,652
    Trophy Points:
    113
    From a legal view none of that reaches the standard necessary for an incitement charge, sorry. Hell you don't even have proof that he lied only that he disagreed with Pence's statement. One can be wrong about something without lying about it.
     
  15. Andrew Jackson

    Andrew Jackson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2016
    Messages:
    48,444
    Likes Received:
    32,202
    Trophy Points:
    113
    :roflol:

    Really? :bored:

    That is ALL that you've got?

    "Lookie Here! Ad Hom Fallacy!":roflol:

    You have got to he kidding.:bored:

    Anyway, I think that Dershowitz's 1st Amendment "argument" (and, his interpretation of the 1A (as it applies to the present case)) is Complete BS.

    You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

    And, if you consider Alan Dershowitz to be the modern channeler of James Madison, that is your prerogative.

    But, I (personally) disagree with Dershowitz's Opinion (and 1A Interpretation).

    Feel free to take the last word. You have my blessing.

    As Everybody (at PF) Knows--I don't waste time (and "keystrokes") on back-and-forths (once that I have are my position crystal clear).

    Carry on.:salute:
     
  16. stone6

    stone6 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    9,281
    Likes Received:
    2,780
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Dershowitz is selling books and parsing words to do so. The former President incited a mob to attack another branch of government, in order to prevent them from carrying out their constitutional responsibility and U.S. law. Whatever the arguments...the key will be to establish a nexus between the intent and the actions. Since the crime was televised, shouldn't be too difficult, less the ability of the Republican Party to vote not to convict.

    DoJ will have another opportunity.
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2021
    ChiCowboy likes this.
  17. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Dude - you have no clue what Ad Hom fallacy is - and that and other fallacy - is all that your post consisted of.

    You don't agree with Dershowitz 1A argument - but you do not state why you disagree.

    Argument 101 - for those who missed the class

    An argument consists of 2 things 1) Statement of Claim or Premise 2) something that shows why your claim is true.

    You have given 1) but there is no 2)

    Now go and learn - Tell us what Dershowitz argument is - and state why you disagree.

    Twirling around crying "NO NO NO -- Wrong Wrong Wrong" is not an argument for much.
     
  18. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Dershowitz does not need to parse words to sell books - and quit making things up .. as if you have some clue what you are talking about - as if you have actually read one of his books .. or know anything about the founding principles and Constitutional law - beyond what you are fed by the State Sponsored Propaganda machine.

    "What ever the Arguments" - Why don't you go figure them out .. and come back when you have some material that isn't make up nonsense or spoon fed propaganda -

    Convict of What ? - and how is Trump responsible for what the footage of the riot show. Did Trump tell these people to riot .. did he plan the riot .. was he in the back room with these protesters telling them what to do .. planning some armed insurrection to topple the US Gov't - or commit acts of terrorism.

    This is a clown show - the consequence of which - is to do nothing but lower the terrorism bar to any people who were present at or associated with a protest where violence or property damage occurs - and then pretending to have the faintest clue what essential liberty and the founding principles are about.

    Good Job ..
     
    AmericanNationalist likes this.
  19. stone6

    stone6 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    9,281
    Likes Received:
    2,780
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Doesn't matter what he thought. The task is to show a nexus between what he said and the crimes which occurred at the Capitol. The FBI is going to go about their investigation using the same methodology as Mueller did. They'll start at the bottom and work their way to the top. Only this time, Trump won't have the power of pardons or a DoJ policy that prevented an indictment. I agree that as of NOW there is insufficient evidence for an indictment (although once organized it's already very close). I've just posted a theory using facts.
     
  20. stone6

    stone6 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    9,281
    Likes Received:
    2,780
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I know Dershowitz as a one-time brilliant civil rights lawyer...and a litigator rather than as a constitutional scholar. Here's a clue...look at the timeline...the sequence of events and who took part at what point. That line suggests the Capitol riot was planned. But, there is a lot more to come.
     
  21. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't deny that a riot was planned - and Dershowitz would not either in all likelihood.

    So what ? - that does not mean that all the protesters were in on that plan - nor that Trump is responsible for those than made such plan.

    NOR - does planning a "riot" necessarily constitute an act of terrorism..

    So why are you making it mean all these things - that it does not - and would not even if the "Suggestion" you put forward "Might" be true.
     
  22. Darthcervantes

    Darthcervantes Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    16,870
    Likes Received:
    17,097
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is an UP side to this. It compromises FREE speech for EVERYONE, including the geniuses on the left.
     
    ButterBalls and RodB like this.
  23. grapeape

    grapeape Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2015
    Messages:
    16,801
    Likes Received:
    9,320
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Then you can easily explain why libel and slander laws are constitutional.
     
  24. stone6

    stone6 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    9,281
    Likes Received:
    2,780
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's the intent of the riot. If a bunch of people run down a street at night and throw bricks through store windows, it is in an abstract way an attack on society and the government that secures that society, which may be at the local, county, state, or national levels. All are crimes are significant and should be punished,
    Yeah it is...if it's for the purpose of preventing the government from carrying out its duties under law. This was to postpone or avoid the warring out of law, by a joint session of Congress.
     
  25. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    28,014
    Likes Received:
    19,305
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I admire you walking your statement back from lies to libel and slander. Lies are protected speech. Trust me, I am a French Model!
     
    ButterBalls, Esdraelon and 9royhobbs like this.

Share This Page