R.I.P. The 1st amendment 1791-2021

@longjon,

You are being silly Longjon.

1. I agree with the settlement paid to Nicholas Sandmann. The Washington Post did defame him.

2. The lawsuit was defamation. It was based on something that the Washington Post published. It was because this story wasn't censored. It had nothing to do with section 230.

3. We don't know what the settlement was.... if you think it was $250 million, you are living in a fantasy world. It is not even clear that the Post would have lost the case had it gone to trial, in fact the judge pushed back on the prosecution to narrow the scope of the case. It is likely he got something like $20 or $50 thousand. Of course we don't know.

0 Replies

@longjon,

The reason you have 230 is so that the tech companies aren't responsible for the content on their platforms. If they were, they would aggressively censor everything. Essentially there would be no social media companies because any lie posted on their sites by anyone would make them liable. I assure you that conservatives and conspiracy theory fans would be significantly silenced if this were the case.

0 Replies

@longjon,

longjon wrote:

Quote:
Stop inciting insurrection

'Insurrection' is when an election is stolen

How was this election stolen?

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

longjon wrote:

Quote:
Stop inciting insurrection

'Insurrection' is when an election is stolen

How was this election stolen?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

longjon wrote:

Quote:
Stop inciting insurrection

'Insurrection' is when an election is stolen

How was this election stolen?

I wonder how many courts and judges, one a trump appointees, need to throw out the claims of a stolen election before the matter is settle.

0 Replies

@hightor,

You just said:

You keep looking for something that isn't there. Remember the "perfect phone call"? Remember when I brought it up before? By repeatedly lying about non-existent voter fraud, demonizing Democrats, "weak" Republicans, the "Deep State", BLM, the press, and ultimately Congress itself he engaged in what is known as "stochastic terrorism". This demagoguery is nothing new, having been a staple of right-wing talk radio (and Trump - note the comments from '16) for decades. But when coming from someone with as much authority as a president, the chance that the rhetoric will be carried too far increases dramatically. So when he tells his mob to march to the Capitol and "fight" to prevent the Congress (and Mike Pence) from doing its job, he's not "innocent" simply because he didn't tell them to break into the chamber and destroy government property. But that's exactly the message that the most rabid supporters heard. That's why they came armed and prepared for violence.

You claimed specifically that Donald Trump "inflamed a mob and directed it to storm the Capitol." Presumably he did it by speaking and not by pantomime. So, tell me the quotation in which he directed a mob to storm the Capitol. This is like pulling teeth. If you were correct, then why are you unable to give me the quotation in which he directed people to storm the Capitol building? Either he did or he didn't. What was the quotation?

2 Replies

@Brandon9000,

This article provides Trump's quotes and discusses the legal definitions of incitement based on Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the requirement for "imminence" and implicit vs explicit incitement.

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

What seems to be the problem, Brandon9000? Here's the text of the entire speech since you haven't been able to find it:

Save America speech Jan 6

Wake up.

1 Reply

@hightor,

You said that Trump directed people to invade the Capitol building, so you ought to know what he said to do that. Tell me one sentence in which he did that. You obviously cannot or you would have by now.

2 Replies

@Brandon9000,

This article provides Trump's quotes and discusses the legal definitions of incitement based on Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the requirement for "imminence" and implicit vs explicit incitement.

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Progressives are liars. It's a given that when a progressive says something, it is untrue.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Progressives are liars. It's a given that when a progressive says something, it is untrue.

Well, I'm not going to play the A2K liberals usual game of five against one. I've now asked hightor five or six times to give me one sentence in which Trump says what he claims Trump said and he cannot.

2 Replies

@Brandon9000,

I can.

This article provides Trump's quotes and discusses the legal definitions of incitement based on Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the requirement for "imminence" and implicit vs explicit incitement.

1 Reply

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

I can.

You can't. If you could produce a quote, you would already have done so.

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Quote:

I've now asked hightor five or six times to give me one sentence in which Trump says what he claims Trump said and he cannot.

And as I've explained to you several times, it's not "one sentence" where he says, "break into the Capitol". It's the actual context, delivering a speech filled with appeals to "strength", the need to "fight", the call to prevent the Senate from doing its job — all addressed to a mob which had been awaiting this event after weeks of lies and was being worked up by other speakers as well.

Did you even look at the article provided by engineer?

3 Replies

@hightor,

LOL, I can provide it again if needed.

0 Replies

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

It's the actual context, delivering a speech filled with appeals to "strength", the need to "fight", the call to prevent the Senate from doing its job -- all addressed to a mob which had been awaiting this event after weeks of lies and was being worked up by other speakers as well.

In other words, it's you reading a meaning into his words that isn't actually there.

0 Replies

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Quote:
I've now asked hightor five or six times to give me one sentence in which Trump says what he claims Trump said and he cannot.

And as I've explained to you several times, it's not "one sentence" where he says, "break into the Capitol". It's the actual context, delivering a speech filled with appeals to "strength", the need to "fight", the call to prevent the Senate from doing its job — all addressed to a mob which had been awaiting this event after weeks of lies and was being worked up by other speakers as well.

Did you even look at the article provided by engineer?

No, I didn't even look at the article provided by engineer and there are two reasons why I didn't. First, I am not going to play the traditional A2K game of five liberals against a conservative. If you cannot support your claims, then you lose. Second, I'm not going to play the game of giving someone a link to the Library of Congress and claiming it proves them right.

You claim Trump said something, so show me the words in which he said it. Actually, you have now finally complied and told me Trump's words you claim prove your point. The idea that telling a political group that they need to fight and show strength is such a solicitation of imminent violence that it overcomes the First Amendment is ridiculous. Virtually every speech urging people to protest says those things.

2 Replies

@Brandon9000,

So you aren't actually interested in learning about the legal definition of incitement and how Trump's comments would be construed inside that definition? It sounds like you want to play the traditional A2K game of a conservative asking for proof and then answering "Nuh-uh", far less interested in learning and discussion than scoring partisan points.

1 Reply

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

how Trump's comments would be construed inside that definition?

You are misconstruing his words. Typical of your dishonorable behavior.

0 Replies

R.I.P. The 1st amendment 1791-2021

Quick Links

My Account

able2know