• houstoneulers@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    19 minutes ago

    What’s an illegal protest? I thought first amendment speech covered that

    Also, how can he expel a student from a school he doesn’t control? or does he mean expel students from the country?

    • nieminen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      42
      ·
      2 hours ago

      That word doesn’t mean anything to him, except as a tool to prosecute people he doesn’t like. Obviously laws and illegality don’t mean shit when it’s him breaking the law.

      Pretty sure there is enough evidence for treason at this point, but Congress won’t act on it.

    • Benaaasaaas@group.lt
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 hour ago

      Well he also did an executive order, that only he is allowed to interpret the law, so… Whatever he feels like is illegal is illegal.

    • HumbleFlamingo@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      That’s the weasel word that lets the right know exactly what he means but still able to pretend like it isn’t what he means.

    • seejur@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Next time an american speaks about “muh first amendment”, “USA only free speech country in the world” bullshit, show them this

      • MisanthropiCynic@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        28
        ·
        2 hours ago

        The problem is it cuts both ways. The Democrats saying they want hate speech to not be protected and Nazi propaganda to be censored is just the flipside of the same coin.

        Either you have free speech or you don’t

          • MisanthropiCynic@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            27
            ·
            2 hours ago

            If it has a limit, it’s not free

            If I can’t do a Nazi salute, then I can’t say “I want to shoot Donald Trump in the face”

            • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              24
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              2 hours ago

              If it has a limit, it’s not free

              “Free bread sticks”

              “I’ll take 100”

              “Um… No. You can’t have that many.”

              “iF tHeRe’S a LiMiT iT’s NoT fReE!”

              • MisanthropiCynic@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                12
                ·
                2 hours ago

                Don’t be pedantic. A limit would be “free breadsticks only if you decide to pray to our god in front of us.”

                If you say unlimited and then put a limit on it, that is illegal, as Verizon and AT&T found out in court

                • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 hour ago

                  If you say unlimited and then put a limit on it

                  When did the American Constitution promise “Unlimited Speech”?

              • MisanthropiCynic@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 hour ago

                Society and laws are at the mercy of those who are in control. Right now in the US it is the Trump administration, but I remember Barack Obama saying, “I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone,” emphasizing his ability to take executive action without waiting for Congress to push his agenda forward.

                That’s not freedom.

              • MisanthropiCynic@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                2 hours ago

                The phrase “shouting fire in a crowded theater” is outdated and legally irrelevant to modern free speech discussions. Its origin from Schenck v. United States (1919) was overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), which set a much higher standard for restricting speech. Modern First Amendment doctrine protects almost all speech unless it directly incites imminent violence or crime.

                • ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  24 minutes ago

                  Modern First Amendment doctrine protects almost all speech unless it directly incites imminent violence or crime.

                  So you are saying there is a limitation

                  So there no free speech afterall 🤔

              • MisanthropiCynic@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                9
                ·
                2 hours ago

                No, because it is unconstitutional to put someone under oath

                By definition, it means a solemn promise that is beholden to a deity therefore it is illegitimate in court and law by the First Amendment.

                You probably also think it should not be legal to kill people that break into your house to steal your TV.

                • ReasonableHat@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  53 minutes ago

                  Fair enough. I think the discussion ends there; I cannot use reason to dissuade you from a position that you clearly did not use reason to get yourself into.

          • MisanthropiCynic@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 hour ago

            I’m banned from that platform because they do not believe in free speech absolutism, especially when you start in on churches and cops

              • MisanthropiCynic@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                33 minutes ago

                Is it so hard to believe you think Free speech should be absolute weapon should be unrestricted, abortion should be unrestricted, people should be able to harness electricity from solar and harness rainwater from the sky?

                Because these are all things that are restricted here except for speech, so I am sure as fuck not going to budge on it

        • prinzmegahertz@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 hour ago

          Yeah, and an allied soldier in WW2 was just the flipside of a Wehrmacht soldier, so both were the same, right?

          • MisanthropiCynic@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 hour ago

            Chinese and Japanese soldiers during that time period would be a much more accurate comparison, and the answer is yes

        • BakerBagel@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 hours ago

          There is a massive difference between allowed to say my government is doing something wrong, and being allowed to say “gas all the kikes”. One is criticism of authority, which is good. The other is hate speech, which is bad. You can absolutely have one without the other.

          • MisanthropiCynic@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            2 hours ago

            There is no difference between those two phrases if you actually have free speech

            And in fact, saying “I voted for Donald Trump”, is way more offensive to me than saying “kill everyone in Gaza”

        • ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          16 minutes ago

          One Question:

          Do you think the government should ban CSAM (Child Sexual Abuse Materials)?

          If yes, then you are already okay with limits the First Amendment and your argument is invalid

          If no, you’re a pedophile and you need to GTFO

        • Tarquinn2049@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Free speech isn’t intended to supercede criminal law. Advocating for hurting people is a crime. If they want to do it and have it be covered as “free speech”, they need to start by changing the law.

          • grue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            21 minutes ago

            Advocating for hurting people is a crime.

            It’s really not, though. Making a specific, credible threat against someone can be, but speaking in general terms that someone ought to be hurt without specifying how, when, or by who is not.

            I’m sure you’ll become correct momentarily, though, once Trump declares that calling for his removal (or hell, any criticism of the regime because why not?) would “hurt” him politically and is therefore a felony. That is what you had in mind, right?

          • MisanthropiCynic@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            2 hours ago

            Advocating for hurting people is not a crime. Even an inactionable threat is not a crime. Look up precedent for arrests of inciting a riot and see how many of those charges actually stuck or help up on appeal.

            The fact that people are saying yore okay to punch Nazis in the face would be a violation of what you are advocating for but you have no problem with that because you don’t like Nazis.

            • Tarquinn2049@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              55 minutes ago

              I personally don’t support people saying that either. Punching people in the face is not a great way to change their minds that they are being “the bad guy”. And I think seeing alot of people post that, is counter productive to the goal of getting along and solving problems together reasonably.

              But I don’t, and shouldn’t, control what everyone else thinks is a good idea.

    • YtA4QCam2A9j7EfTgHrH@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      3 hours ago

      You are not wrong. The Supreme Court finding presidential immunity and then allowing an insurrectionist to run in contravention of the 14th amendment seems to have finally put the old document to rest.