Not covered under the First Amendment: The ACLU is wrong about Trump and incitement to violence

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

But i fail t see how that is relevant here.

Right why would consistency be relevant here.

Going after people for what they say.

The kind of stuff that goes on Iran,North Korea,China, BERKELEY.

Whats the point of living in a free society if everything we say can and will be held against us in the kangaroo courts of public opinion.

Who needs due process and check to absolute power.

Political Justice!

God bless 'Murica.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis


Dude "protesters" cant come into a privet meeting and have free grounds to disrupt it. In such cases disrupters can be removed. There are even laws protecting meetings. Cant do it. Not protected speech, action, whatever.

a reply to: Logarock

The issue is that the spectators were not given the authority to act. The oppression of free speech happened by attendees shoving the protesters.

Think about it...under what authority would a regular ticket holder remove another ticket holder against their will?

Trumps remarks are up for debate, and the debate is likely to be fervent.

a reply to: neo96

And this is why porn is legal. You know it when you see it, its hard to define, but its still free speech even if you disapprove of it.

Im feeling that i dont approve of Trumps free speech here. You can call me Hitler if that makes you feel better. LOL

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Im feeling that i dont approve of Trumps free speech here. You can call me Hitler if that makes you feel better. LOL

I know this for sure.

They open this door.

They pursue this.

That door opens both ways.

And they will go after the last guy.

a reply to: neo96

Do you understand that it is a Trump supporter suing Trump?

a reply to: Kali74

And every other day of the week Trump supporters 'suck'.

Until a topic comes along that amounts to nothing more than confirmation bias.

a reply to: neo96

Do you understand everyone in this thread so far has sided with Trump as did the ACLU?

i wonder if Trump said instead, "folks, everyone is free to protest and have an opinion, lets let the security team peacefully escort them out if they are being unruly. otherwise let them stay"- and there was no violence, and people did not get assaulted for simply being at a venue... oh wait... crazy ideas...

Trump had absolutely nothing to do with the outcome, cause and effect here was purely incidental....

whatever. as if there isnt better shet to worry about in the country.

a reply to: Kali74

WHAT are we INDIA?

funding won't be wasted and THERE ARE reasons for violence in life.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Kali74

WHAT are we INDIA?

funding won't be wasted and THERE ARE reasons for violence in life.

WUT?

I wonder what would be said from the apologists if Obama had said/done the exact same thing? If one would not defend Obama the way one defends Trump here, then why? Let's say you did lambast Obama if he said this, well then you see the statements as provocative. Why let partisan affiliation affect your projection? There is right and wrong and the if the statement is benign beyond any reasonable doubt well that's one thing, but there is reasonable doubt here and if one thinks it would be inciting violence if Obama had said it but not Trump, how does that make sense to them inside?

a reply to: Kali74

YOU :I think we should start holding PSA's that teach no matter who tells you to violent, you don't obey.
then I answered you about your idea,YOU didn't get it because YOU are not talking about the subject you are talking about how YOU feel.
IT DOESN'T pertain to the subject its your idea.
TRUMP did give any violent instructions so it's mute.
Now had he said "I want you to hold them down and gouge out their eyes like JELLY!"
YOU may have a leg to stand on .

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: yuppa

In context with other rallies and other things he said... yes I believe he incited. I'm not interested in arguing it beyond that. I came down on the side of letting him off the hook, just in case. That's going to have to be good enough.

Your interest level doesn't mean squat. For all we know he was talking to security to "get 'em outa here" and played it up for the crowd.

What's your interest in arguing Antifa, by the way?

a reply to: neo96

Here's a simple question.
Are you responsible for the actions of someone else ?

Well, Trump did offer to pay legal bills. So, there's that. What's that if not taking responsibility for someone else's actions?

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Trumps remarks are up for debate, and the debate is likely to be fervent.

See - this is what got to me. It's really a fascinating case. Out of the gate is seems like it's already over, but I'm dying to see how they argue it. I can almost see the judge waving it through for the entertainment value

a reply to: Kali74

I think cavtrooper7 is having a dream Kali

Try not to wake him :-)

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

If it goes to trial and various motions by the defense don't dispatch it, it'll be settled quickly and as quietly as possible.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Can we get rid of the Conservative activist judges too?

There's really no conservative activist judges. There are Constitutionalist judges who the left calls "extremists" because they actually rule according to the very document that give every judge their authority.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

The Trump campaign paid the Kentucky State Fair Board to rent out the Exposition Center for the event. Thus, the campaign can have anyone removed from the event at their discretion. Trump saying "get em out of here" is no different than a bartender yelling for the same... if another bar patron takes it on themselves to act before the bouncer does his job, then the culpability is 100% on the intervening patron, NOT the bartender. Same here, only the bartender is Trump and the bouncer is event security.