House Impeachment Threatens Freedom of Speech

It would prohibit speech (true or not) designed to incite crimes, provided a nexus is found between the speech and the crime.

 

Then you can easily explain how Libel and slander laws are constitutional ?

 

So if you can be sued....it is NOT constitutionally protected.

Civil and criminal law all still have to follow the constitution

 

So explain how Dominion can sue Donald Trump is the constitution protects him from lying

 

Civil and Criminal Law both have to abide by the constitution. All due respect, but you can be sued for lying about someone or something. So if libel and slander laws are constitutional, then the first amendment does not give you the right to lie.

You cannot square one against the other. One is true the other isnt.

 

Under certain situations, lying to the government is a crime, so there are sometimes legal repercussions. I agree that companies can sue, which is a deterrent to spreading slander. It's also an incentive for media to report factually.

 

The constitution has nothing to do with Dominion. It limits the power of government, not companies.

 

Jan 6, 2021

 

President Donald Trump on Monday urged Vice President Mike Pence to oppose the congressional certification of the 2020 election on Wednesday.

“I hope that our great Vice President comes through for us,” Trump said during a campaign rally in Georgia for Republicans Sens. David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler in their runoff election on Tuesday.
...
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...ke-pence-comes-through-for-us-on-january-6th/


"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 fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!" Trump wrote at 2:24 p.m. ET as the mob of his supporters was breaching the building.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-tweeted-angrily-about-mike-pence-even-while-the-vice-president-was-in-hiding-after-being-targeted-in-the-capitol-siege/ar-BB1cFIbK?item=flightsrg-enterpriseblended-t,1s-ent-microsoft



A pro-Trump mob chanted "Hang Mike Pence" as they stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

2 months of incitement. Culminating with the 'stop the steal' rally he supported and spoke at.



We have great ones, Jim Jordan, and some of these guys. They’re out there fighting the House. Guys are fighting,
...
We have great ones, Jim Jordan, and some of these guys. They’re out there fighting the House. Guys are fighting,
...
We’re going to have to fight much harder and Mike Pence is going to have to come through for us. If he doesn’t, that will be a sad day for our country because you’re sworn to uphold our constitution.
...
https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-speech-save-america-rally-transcript-january-6

23 times in his speech he mentions fight.

He knows how mob mentality works. Just incite them, and give a gentle push.

 

Why would you read such trash?

 

Agreed. False statements are criminalized under oath and in certain investigations. They're restrictions written into law. Both criminal and civil proceedings involve sworn testimony, so there's no distinction there. There is a distinction to be made however, which does broadly support a 1st Amendment right to lie.

Libel and slander require damages. No damages, no case. There is no criminal law against slander, so it isn't even regulated speech like sworn testimony is.

We're responsible for our actions, and if our actions cause damages, it doesn't matter that we were exercising our rights. If I'm up in the mountains shooting, just because it's legal to shoot doesn't mean I can shoot out my ex's windshield without having to pay for it. Even accidentally. Speech is no different. We do have a right to lie. But if our speech causes harm (it doesn't have to be a lie), we can be held financially responsible.

Civil cases don't address constitutionality, that I know of.

 

You are describing a dictators tool. Already practiced in places where those in power throw protestors and supporters of opposition into prisons.

 

Free speech isn't limited by the constitution in any way. Slander and inciting riot is punishable by law, but you would find that very arbitrary.
For authorities in government to call violent rioters peaceful protestors and order police to stand down, and thus deny protection to the citizens, certainly constitutes a crime- in terms of aiding and abetting.
You can't charge them with speaking an untruth- you can charge them with the damage that results from it.

This is not so much a black and white line; it's dependent not only on what is said, but how it's said and the consequences it precipitates.
We have people on the left wanting to pass laws against any stating an opinion that their policies are bad. That's Chinese politics- even N Korean politics. It speaks clearly to the nature and motivations of the people advocating it.

READ THE FIRST AMENDMENT:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Any law controlling the content of speech would be abridging free speech, regardless of the contents message.
However, damage done by malicious speech is different, prosecutable by conventional law- but not addressed at all in the constitution.
You have the right to say anything; people you falsely accuse or do damage to with that speech have a right to sue you for the damages, or in some cases jail you for it (such as inciting a riot)

 

Exactly what Trump has been trying to do for 5 years!

 

It should scare any rational person. We are seeing the result of an out of control government/media partnership that aims to take control of America. IMO, what happened in DC on 1/6 was a national embarrassment. It shouldn't have occurred and there is reason to believe it was "helped" along by some of the professional agitators whose work we saw for months this past summer. That is not an excuse. Those who broke the law should be held accountable but this insane rush to convict those who were there for crimes "against the nation" is sinister. Those who are supporting this madness will come to regret it in the future because when this kind of mob can be whipped up to righteous indignation and a rush to judgment against their "enemies", it can also be used against THEM in the future.

Indeed they do. What do you think of THESE words?
https://weatherinternal.com/msnbc-s...ent-trump-deserved-to-have-been-drone-bombed/
Does it concern you that we have statements like this coming from media sources that millions of Americans trust for an accurate picture of what is happening in their world? This is not some one-off, or a reporter who is misinformed. This kind of rhetoric is building and it is stoking anger against Americans who went to DC to protest what they saw as a stolen election. As it turns out, Time Magazine has reported that there WAS a "secret, well-funded cabal" that manipulated this election in MANY ways, for over a year, to "protect" the outcome.
If this action that was taken and then CELEBRATED when it achieved the desired result, is allowed to stand and is normalized, then we are witnessing the fall of America into a single-party police state.

 

Examples?

 

Remember "lock her up"?

 

No, it cannot — as I don’t plan on rioting or storming the capitol because of fake news.

Yes, it does concern me. Our media needs to report news and facts — something that is more and more rare. I do not believe it arrises to the level of domestic terrorism we witnessed in the capitol however.

We need protections in our elections, to safe guard against manipulation and false information meant to interfere in the outcome.
We saw what happened with Cambridge Analytica and that scandal.

 

No...it's U.S. law. It's tough to prove, but not impossible. Mafia families developed ways of making it extremely difficult to prove "intent." No personal confession of guilt, no intent. So, we developed the RICO statutes for crime families. He went too far on January 6th...became a threat to the republic. Now, without the DoJ policy protection making it impossible to indict a sitting President and his pardon powers, plus financial problems, he's facing numerous indictments, escalating legal costs, and renewed investigations into his connections with Russia oligarchs, and an attempt to overthrow the U.S. government. Plus, he's made too many enemies. It will become worse and worse for him and his cronies, such as Giuliani, Stone, Manafort, et al. But he'll provide a show as he goes down...the masses have no respect for a loser.

 

I read the article. He's misinterpreting it. It merely points out that normally opposing elites, such as labor union leaders and the chamber of commerce leaders, united to make sure the odds of Trump winning were reduced. Whereas in 2016, there was less of that and it was more the traditional alignment.

 

Labeling protests - Domestic Terrorism - because there happens to be some violence or property damage is Authoritarianism.

That there were some agitators amongst the protesters - as often happens - often CIA or paid for by the CIA - specially in other nations - is normal. Not that it was CIA in this case "False Flag" - but just stating that agitators in Protests is more the rule rather than the exception.

But it is not just these folks who are being called "Terrorists" the Goblins - it is all the Protesters that went into the building -and outside the building .. and anyone who happens to be involved in speaking to the group .. now responsible for the actions of the entire group.

real bad Precedent -- down a dark path. How are we going to punish these "Terrorists" ? - as as soon as we use that designation .. the Rule of Law goes out the window .. Punishment don't have to fit the crime . .. we just get to make up stuff .. and that is the sentence.

Way too much power being ceded - on the basis of a whim - Oh .. we will just call this one terrorism - start a demonization campaigne against this leader we don't like ... and off to the gulag for some Sodomy.

 

They'll all get their day in court. And, the FBI will sort them out. Anyone inside the Capitol, outside of Capitol staff, and the Congressional people was in violation of the law. The Capitol was closed to "visitors." The fact that the President told them that it was OK to break the rules will be a mitigating factor, but not for those who engaged in breaking and entering, theft, and/or violence. Oh yeah...and the rule of law stands. Watch how it proceeds over the next months of investigation, Grand Jury indictments, and trials over the forthcoming months. You may learn how the President has no powers that allow him to change "the rules."

 

A minor clarification if I may: I don't think this is unfortunate. I think it is proper.

 

Trump has no jurisdiction or authority over the DC police. If you meant capitol police they were there. He himself cannot call out the national guard for DC although a general can and unlike everywhere else does not need a real request from the mayor of DC, although that would help. They were called out. Like with Katrina you are desperately trying to blame Trump for failures of local and state authorities, and I suppose blaming him for the faults of the Capitol police who are under the authority of congress. Next???? Anything else you can dream up?

 

Speech to incite crimes IS already illegal.