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

There should be a law that says anyone who intentionally disrupts at a private political rally gets 10 years in jail. Disruption is as much a sin as hacking email.

a reply to: allsee4eye

what does the law say about voter fraud?? do any Democrats here know?

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: smurfy

Is that so?

Show us the tape!

does it matter which one? you surprise me, never seeing Trump acting lika babbie.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Lol, all the courts are doing, is making the laws and precedents untenable. This will all backfire gloriously.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I can state clearly that the case I've linked addresses three defendants with the addition of the Trump Campaign and Mr. Trump himself.

So five all totaled.

That's really all that's relevant to the thread, which is about the Judge's decision in the court case referenced in my OP.

I'd really appreciate it if we can talk about that. That would include legal precedents, arguments about First Amendment decisions, etc.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Gryphon66

Lol, all the courts are doing, is making the laws and precedents untenable. This will all backfire gloriously.

All because you don't agree with the Judge's decision to move forward with a trial?

LOL. Okay. I don't see it that way.

a reply to: network dude

Sorry Gryph & Network Dude et al.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Can we obtain a copy of the, I presume civil suit? See how it's worded...thanks

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Gryphon66

Your definition of assault is awfully strict. Assault can be claimed from just touching someone. As a Security guard i was hit with that claim alot.

Yeah I got that from the daily beast. it was the first result on my Googlesearch.

And I never said security hit the man. I said soem dummies in the crowd did as security was escorting him out.

Still point is GOing by trumps own words that was not inciting people to hurt the man being escorted out.

I haven't defined assault.

May I say I'm not surprised?

Thanks, usually good to cite what we copy-and-paste.

No, that's not what you said, but good enough. The case is against those who assaulted the protesters.

As I said, we'll see what the court finds.

Well good to see we almost totally agree. Thnak you. Yes this one ought to be a interesting trial.

originally posted by: thedigirati
a reply to: Gryphon66

I never take anything online personally, I've been online for 25 years; I barely take "news" online seriously. I was a Marine and insulted by professionals, amateurs never bother me at all.

Deriding someone for grammar is a bad thing to do then you should know right since you were in the marines,unless you are seriously trying to educate and not just insult their intelligence correct?(it is the internet. grammar is not that important lol)

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

Well then if that is the case.

Then Obama is directly responsible for cops getting shot in the streets.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Mr. Trump is not above the law. No one should be above the law, right?

What specific law did Trump break? Don't me how you feel, tell me what law he broke.

so does this open the door for business's who suffered damages and others who were beat by people rioting since loretta lynch and others have called for more blood shed in the streets?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Obama appointee. Isn't that all we need to know

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 .

Anyone remember a Prez Obama telling his supporters to get in people's faces ? My how we forget stuff .

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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?

Even if it's the president ordering drone strikes?

The biggest problem that I see .....if a judgment is ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. It sets up a situation where anyo e can go to any type of gathering and start protesting/disrupting. ...and then sue if they are physically removed by attendees.

How do we know that wasn't the intents of the protesters ? To "create " a situation for a lawsuit. I mean there was no justification for them to be at the rally. If they didn't support Trump then they shouldn't have been there. ...especially if Trump paid for the venue.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: Gryphon66

You actually think this crap would hold up in court. I know this stuff makrs the left get a collective hard on but please remain rational

And honestly Clinton hired protesters were crashing Bernie rallies so how can I take this seriously

So Fox News is "left" now? That's the source.

All due respect, it doesn't matter if you take this seriously ... it's what the Court take seriously.

Let me know when the all wise "courts" take obama murdering thousands by running ISIS,

allowing a diplomat to get murdered so he could give wahabist weapons

Giving cartels weapons that they used to murder

Seriously....

Your in a cult, obama has been the greatest mass murderer in US history, maybe this "judge" could look into just a few of his crimes against humanity.