Trump Impeachment, the sequel- Split from: Tech Giants Shutting Down Violent Social Media Cesspools

[ScienceNostalgia101]

2 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

There's also a difference between ordering a  cake and inciting insurrection...

Geraldo Riviera went to Brooklyn Law School and says Trump's acquittal is as inevitable as the impeachment itself because what he said was covered under the first amendment. If both that and expressions of love are covered under the first amendment, by what standard do we distinguish which we get to discriminate against?

 

Again, this is meant only for those who opposed that baker's right to discriminate and supported Facebook and Twitter's right to.

[John Cuthber]

If the outcome of impeachment proceedings was based in law and evidence, then Trump would have been kicked out last time.

The right to freedom of speech does not stop there being a law (and indeed an article in the constitution) against inciting insurrection.

The right to freedom of speech is not absolute; it never has been.

In the limit, the decision is made by a court.
The Senate may well decide that telling people to "fight like hell" is not acceptable.

More importantly, the Republicans may decide that Trump's usefulness has come to and end and it's better to get rid of him in which case- like last time- the law won't matter.

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

4 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

If the outcome of impeachment proceedings was based in law and evidence, then Trump would have been kicked out last time.

The right to freedom of speech does not stop there being a law (and indeed an article in the constitution) against inciting insurrection.

The right to freedom of speech is not absolute; it never has been.

In the limit, the decision is made by a court.
The Senate may well decide that telling people to "fight like hell" is not acceptable.

More importantly, the Republicans may decide that Trump's usefulness has come to and end and it's better to get rid of him in which case- like last time- the law won't matter.

 

We were all told there was plenty of evidence last time. Many many times. 

This time we could observe it directly, with much much less room for a favourable interpretation for Trump.

[John Cuthber]

3 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

We were all told there was plenty of evidence last time

And there was, plenty but only Romney let his belief in truth overrule his loyalty to the party.

[CharonY]

And even those voting against mentioned that what the president did was not right, but he learned his lesson. This time even  McConnel has mentioned that the are impeachable offenses...

Potentially because a Trump 2024 run could make the GOP implode.

[dimreepr]

10 minutes ago, CharonY said:

And even those voting against mentioned that what the president did was not right, but he learned his lesson. This time even  McConnel has mentioned that the are impeachable offenses...

Potentially because a Trump 2024 run could make the GOP implode.

"Hooverville" sucks, for everyone...

[iNow]

2 hours ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

How is it that social media is allowed to discriminate based on customers' political opinions

Your premise is false. You're arguing against strawmen. There is no discrimination based on political opinions. The issue is intent to cause harm toward others, to incite violence, and to encourage sedition against a freely and fairly elected government in a Constitutional Republic.

It's the hateful nazi views that are being suppressed. The fact that so many people (including yourself) see that as equivalent to suppressing your political opinion is itself rather telling about the validity of said opinion. 

1 hour ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

Geraldo Riviera went to Brooklyn Law School and says Trump's acquittal is as inevitable as the impeachment itself because what he said was covered under the first amendment.

Did you seriously just cite Geraldo Rivera as a constitutional expert?!?!?  🤣😂 🤣😂 🤣😂🤣

***

Gentle reminder to all that this is not the impeachment thread. This one is focused on technology companies clamping down on activities that lead to needless death and division. 

[ScienceNostalgia101]

49 minutes ago, iNow said:

Did you seriously just cite Geraldo Rivera as a constitutional expert?!?!?  🤣😂 🤣😂 🤣😂🤣

 

Not quite. But as someone proven to have gone to law school, he comes a hell of a lot closer than the rest of us.

 

And if what Trump did doesn't fall under First Amendment protection... doesn't that mean that literally every person who shouted "hang Mike Pence" during that riot can be arrested for incitement to violence? If so, how come they haven't?

 

I thought Trump was guilty on the Ukraine thing too, but isn't claiming to know better than the people who were in that impeachment room a little like claiming to know better than the people who were in the jury room?

[swansont]

2 hours ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

Geraldo Riviera went to Brooklyn Law School and says Trump's acquittal is as inevitable as the impeachment itself because what he said was covered under the first amendment.

The president is not a private citizen, so the protections of the first amendment are not the same as they would be for private speech.

That aside, inciting to riot is, AFAIK, not protected speech. Seditious consiracy, however, is.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

That, plus the notion that something need not be criminal in order to be worthy of impeachment. 

 

 

[iNow]

7 minutes ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

And if what Trump did doesn't fall under First Amendment protection... doesn't that mean that literally every person who shouted "hang Mike Pence" during that riot can be arrested for incitement to violence? If so, how come they haven't?

Many have, and work of law enforcement to ascertain their location and charge them with these things continues. It's like you're asking me if the water is running in the bathtub, how come it hasn't overflowed? Well... the water just got turned on a few seconds ago, dude. Wait a few minutes, will ya?

[iNow]

9 minutes ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

I thought Trump was guilty on the Ukraine thing too

And he was impeached on those charges, too... successfully. The question of his guilt was never decided, however, because the Republican controlled Senate rejected the articles of impeachment passed over by the House and refused to allow witnesses and further discussion... basically, a proper trial never occured. 

Again... this is not a thread about impeachment (unless you're suggesting tech companies have that power? granted... it wouldn't be inconsistent with some of the other ridiculous claims you've made in your various posts, but it's clearly off-topic here... ). 

[ScienceNostalgia101]

8 minutes ago, iNow said:

Many have, and work of law enforcement to ascertain their location and charge them with these things continues. It's like you're asking me if the water is running in the bathtub, how come it hasn't overflowed? Well... the water just got turned on a few seconds ago, dude. Wait a few minutes, will ya?

People have already been arrested for stealing the lecterns and stuff like that, but I haven't heard of people being arrested specifically for shouting "hang Mike Pence." If it wasn't protected under freedom of speech, wouldn't putting away people who aren't above inciting violence take priority over putting away people who aren't above stealing?

 

No, the impeachment is not off topic. It is closely tied to whether or not what these people did constitutes protected speech.

[swansont]

14 minutes ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

People have already been arrested for stealing the lecterns and stuff like that, but I haven't heard of people being arrested specifically for shouting "hang Mike Pence." If it wasn't protected under freedom of speech, wouldn't putting away people who aren't above inciting violence take priority over putting away people who aren't above stealing?

There was an FBI briefing that indicated that more arrests and charges are coming; even if they were misdemeanor arrests, this does not preclude additional charges being brought after further investigation. There's a lot of evidence to sort through.

 

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/doj-felony-sedition-charges-rioters-stormed-us-capitol/story?id=75203243

https://www.npr.org/sections/congress-electoral-college-tally-live-updates/2021/01/12/956083079/justice-department-warns-its-coming-for-those-involved-in-capitol-violence

 

And, of course lots of stuff on parler (and twitter, facebook) to go through, because lots of the planning and coordination took place there before accounts and platforms got shut down.

 

14 minutes ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

No, the impeachment is not off topic. It is closely tied to whether or not what these people did constitutes protected speech.

Private industry not providing a platform is not a protected speech issue. The first amendment is about government shutting down or punishing free speech