It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Judge to Trump: No protection for speech inciting violence - Fox News Channel

page: 1
23
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+9 more 
posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 12:24 AM
link   


Judge David J. Hale in Louisville ruled Friday that the suit against Trump, his campaign and three of his supporters can proceed. Hale found ample facts supporting allegations that the protesters' injuries were a "direct and proximate result" of Trump's actions."It is plausible that Trump's direction to 'get 'em out of here' advocated the use of force," Hale wrote.


Fox News Channel - 4/1/2017

What a blast from the past! Judge Hale also decided to allow certain information on the backgrounds of the assailants that they tried to block:



Plaintiffs Kashiya Nwanguma, Molly Shah, and Henry Brousseau allege that they were physically attacked by several members of the audience, including Matthew Heimbach, Alvin Bamberger, and an unnamed defendant they have yet to be able to identify.

Bamberger later apologized to the Korean War Veterans Association, whose uniform he wore at the rally. He wrote that he "physically pushed a young woman down the aisle toward the exit" after "Trump kept saying 'get them out, get them out," according to the lawsuit. Heimbach, for his part, sought to dismiss the lawsuit's discussion of his association with a white nationalist group and of statements he made about how Trump could advance the group's interests.

The judge declined, saying such information could be important context when determining punitive damages.


Yeeouch! That hits some of the strongest stereotypes of Trump supporters right on the head, doesn't it? But, hang on the racist angle only gets worse:



The judge also declined to remove allegations that Nwanguma, an African-American, was the victim of racial, ethnic and sexist slurs from the crowd at the rally. This context may support the plaintiffs' claims of negligence and incitement by Trump and his campaign, the judge said.

"While the words themselves are repulsive, they are relevant to show the atmosphere in which the alleged events occurred," Hale wrote.


Judge Hale, it should be noted, was an Obama-appointee in 2014. It will be interesting to see how this trial plays out, and whether President Trump will have to testify or not.

However it turns out, these are sad divisive times in our country's history.
edit on 2-4-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Added link



+26 more 
posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 12:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Oh boy...one of those "so-called" judges, who also happens to be an IDIOT. If saying "Get them out of here" can get you sued, imagine the precedent that would set!


+22 more 
posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 12:30 AM
link   
They better start arresting and charging all the leftists , sjws , blm and the rest in that case as theyve incited far more violence .


+6 more 
posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 12:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Gryphon66

Oh boy...one of those "so-called" judges, who also happens to be an IDIOT. If saying "Get them out of here" can get you sued, imagine the precedent that would set!



A "so-called judge"? Why is that, because Obama appointed him? Are you familiar with the pattern of his rulings? Some reason to doubt his intellect (aside from the potential negatives for Trump)?

Freedom of speech can not be used to cause direct harm to others. This was not a case of Mr. Trump asking his security team to remove disruptors, but of him telling other audience members to take action.

Part of a constellation of actions, by the way, in which he referred on more than one occasion to violence, even once suggesting that folks should be taken out on stretchers.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 12:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: VengefulGhost
They better start arresting and charging all the leftists , sjws , blm and the rest in that case as theyve incited far more violence .


You agree however that inciting violence against others is a crime? No matter who does it?



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 12:44 AM
link   
Doesnt matter which side theyre on . If their speach incites /causes violence throw their asses under the jail for the next 20 years .

Maybe then theyll learn theres civilised ways to do things without inciting / resorting to violence .


+5 more 
posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 12:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

So asking security to remove someone can lead to you being sued? Wow that cant hold up in any court because they leads into problems even talking to police. People who even report a crime could be held liable for actions of others.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 12:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: VengefulGhost
Doesnt matter which side theyre on . If their speach incites /causes violence throw their asses under the jail for the next 20 years .

Maybe then theyll learn theres civilised ways to do things without inciting / resorting to violence .



Sounds civilized.


edit on 2-4-2017 by thesaneone because: (no reason given)


+6 more 
posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 12:51 AM
link   
Lol, Obama appointed, that's all anyone needs to know.


+2 more 
posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 12:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Lol, Obama appointed, that's all anyone needs to know.


Really? So nothing about the legal standing of the case, or precedent or anything?

Perhaps you should say that's all a Trump supporter needs to know? LOL



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 12:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Gryphon66

So asking security to remove someone can lead to you being sued? Wow that cant hold up in any court because they leads into problems even talking to police. People who even report a crime could be held liable for actions of others.


The folks that were directed to remove the protesters were not security, they were audience members, according to the Fox News report. That seems to be part of the problem; perhaps professional security wouldn't have roughed them up or used racial slurs in their removal?



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 12:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: VengefulGhost
Doesnt matter which side theyre on . If their speach incites /causes violence throw their asses under the jail for the next 20 years .

Maybe then theyll learn theres civilised ways to do things without inciting / resorting to violence .



Sounds civilized.


Sounds civilized to stand up against violence used for political means?

I agree. Wherever and whenever it is found. Violence is not a political tool in our country.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 01:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Freedom of speech can not be used to cause direct harm to others.



Hrm, and yet people were told that the violent left wing protests were a direct result of Trump speaking. That it was his fault the violence erupted caused by maniacs who didn't want him to speak.

Ahhh the bitter irony, tastes like tears.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 01:36 AM
link   
a reply to: LoneWrecche

Exactly right! Besides, Homeland Security tells us to be "vigilant" and neutralize threats. Right?



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 01:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

It's official, the left wing judiciaries have gone full retard.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 01:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Gryphon66

So asking security to remove someone can lead to you being sued? Wow that cant hold up in any court because they leads into problems even talking to police. People who even report a crime could be held liable for actions of others.


The folks that were directed to remove the protesters were not security, they were audience members, according to the Fox News report. That seems to be part of the problem; perhaps professional security wouldn't have roughed them up or used racial slurs in their removal?




No he had security at each of his rallies most of the time it was the police. He never asked the audience to remove protesters that would just be silly since they wouldn't do it anyway. they would just wait for security as to the individuals that attacked them that's simple its assault take them to court. But in no way is someone else responsible for decisions they make. Or the assaults did no damage to them physically so going after the person doesn't get as much money????
edit on 4/2/17 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)


+7 more 
posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 01:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Lol, Obama appointed, that's all anyone needs to know.


Really? So nothing about the legal standing of the case, or precedent or anything?

Perhaps you should say that's all a Trump supporter needs to know? LOL


When a gangster thugs momma can stand on the hood of a car in the midst of a BLM riot mob and scream burn this b#@$#@# down!! to urge the arsonists on and nothing is done about it, yeah this is frivolous politics with an Obama appointed Judge yet again.


+5 more 
posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 01:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: VengefulGhost
Doesnt matter which side theyre on . If their speach incites /causes violence throw their asses under the jail for the next 20 years .

Maybe then theyll learn theres civilised ways to do things without inciting / resorting to violence .



Sounds civilized.


Sounds civilized to stand up against violence used for political means?

I agree. Wherever and whenever it is found. Violence is not a political tool in our country.


I just checked, but somehow you completely missed all those opportunities to OP threads shouting down all the violence used by the left the past year.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here's a refresher course for you:
Social Justice Assault Warriors TV Marathon!

Although it sure was interesting how when the Veritas tapes showing Hillary's campaigners out actively inciting riots, you didn't seem to apply your new code therein. Good to see you turning over a new leaf.

edit on 2-4-2017 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 01:52 AM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP

What about Ms. Yvette Falarca...who orchestrated the USC Berkeley riots, that resulted in property destruction and injuries?

REF: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Should she be sued for "inciting violence"?



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 01:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

What do you say should be done to MoveOn.org, the Hillary Campaign, Soros, etc, for the Chicago riot?



In case you forgot how that got started:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



new topics

top topics



 
23
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join