Johnny Bear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Also, this thread is not big on free speech. What is the difference between the First and Second Amendments?

---

Big difference between "free speech," as you call it, and the heckler's veto. The latter is what is taking place at Columbia, with pro-Hamas students harassing people for merely being Jewish. Yesterday, they formed a human chain to specifically prevent Jewish students from entering buildings.

Instead of "free speech," it is something more akin to this:

---

I am certain both types of speech are happening. Anyone preventing access to public buildings is disturbing the peace. Someone who threatens the person or property of another with intent to follow through is making a criminal threat. If someone lays hands on another, it is assault. Arrest and remove them, which it sounds like the school is doing.

---

My question is what consequences, if any, are these students being "arrested" facing other than possibly they now have a police record? Looks like they're just being quickly released and for the most part subsequently laughing it off with their fellow terrorist supporters. What good does getting arrested do if the consequences aren't serious enough to at least have a deterrent affect?

---

First, "just having a police record" is not a small thing.

Second, another American thing we do is "presumed innocent until proven guilty." You seem to believe that we don't need courts to determine that which is troubling.

Third, it is a misdemeanor. I am sure bail/bond is handled just like other misdemeanors.

The understanding of the Consittuion around here is insanely low.

Malbec said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Also, this thread is not big on free speech. What is the difference between the First and Second Amendments?

---

You leftists really do live in your own reality, don't you?

---

No, free speech is pretty basic to American reality.

---

If HAMAS is a designated terrorist organization by the U.S. (and since 1997), and protestors say, "We are HAMAS!" while chanting "Death to America!," would that be simply 'free speech'?

---

By that I think you mean could the government succesfully prosecute the students for making a terrisitc threat? Doubtful. "Death to America" is not imminent action and the students are not going to cause imminent action.

If they said burn the federal courthouse that more specfic statement is going to be more actionable. If they said burn the federal courthouse while stockpiling kerosene or publishing diagrams, defintitely yes.

Again the First Amendment exists to protect offensive political speech.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Also, this thread is not big on free speech. What is the difference between the First and Second Amendments?

---

Big difference between "free speech," as you call it, and the heckler's veto. The latter is what is taking place at Columbia, with pro-Hamas students harassing people for merely being Jewish. Yesterday, they formed a human chain to specifically prevent Jewish students from entering buildings.

Instead of "free speech," it is something more akin to this:

---

I am certain both types of speech are happening. Anyone preventing access to public buildings is disturbing the peace. Someone who threatens the person or property of another with intent to follow through is making a criminal threat. If someone lays hands on another, it is assault. Arrest and remove them, which it sounds like the school is doing.


Offensive speech like Death to America and war criminal or flag burning is protected. It has to be for the First Amendment to have any meaning.

---

Saying "death" to a country is not protected free speech. Maybe you should learn what the first amendment is first.

---

It is a political statement which gets the most protection under the First Amendment. On the other hand it is anti-American. The relevant precedent is Bradenburg v. Ohio where SCOTUS phrased the test this way:

Government cannot censor anti-government speech unless it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." College kids chanting is not specifc enough to say there is imminentn lawless action and is not likely to produce that action. It is most certanly free speech protected by the First Amendement just as burning American flags is.

Of course Columbia is not the government and it can do whatever it feels appropriate to student chanters.

---

"Death to America" and "Death to Israel" are chants that are widely known to be associated with actual physical violence to American and Israeli people, so it can not be viewed simply as political speech.

---

"Heil Hitler" is even more widely known to be speech associated with torturing and killing Jews. We protect the right to say that.

There has to be a danger the offensive speech will be acted on for it to be censored.

https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/legal-documents/4156_ri_1978.pdf

Frank Galvin said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Also, this thread is not big on free speech. What is the difference between the First and Second Amendments?

---

You leftists really do live in your own reality, don't you?

---

No, free speech is pretty basic to American reality.

---

If HAMAS is a designated terrorist organization by the U.S. (and since 1997), and protestors say, "We are HAMAS!" while chanting "Death to America!," would that be simply 'free speech'?

---

By that I think you mean could the government succesfully prosecute the students for making a terrisitc threat? Doubtful. "Death to America" is not imminent action and the students are not going to cause imminent action.

If they said burn the federal courthouse that more specfic statemetn is going to be more actionable. If they said burn the federal courthouse while stcokpiling kerosene or publishing diagrams, defintitely yes.

Again the First Amendment exists to protect offensive political speech.

---

So then, not inciting insurrection?

Malbec said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Also, this thread is not big on free speech. What is the difference between the First and Second Amendments?

---

You leftists really do live in your own reality, don't you?

---

No, free speech is pretty basic to American reality.

---

If HAMAS is a designated terrorist organization by the U.S. (and since 1997), and protestors say, "We are HAMAS!" while chanting "Death to America!," would that be simply 'free speech'?

---

By that I think you mean could the government succesfully prosecute the students for making a terrisitc threat? Doubtful. "Death to America" is not imminent action and the students are not going to cause imminent action.

If they said burn the federal courthouse that more specfic statemetn is going to be more actionable. If they said burn the federal courthouse while stcokpiling kerosene or publishing diagrams, defintitely yes.

Again the First Amendment exists to protect offensive political speech.

---

So then, not inciting insurrection?

---

Not if there is no danger that an insurrection will occur.

Frank Galvin said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Also, this thread is not big on free speech. What is the difference between the First and Second Amendments?

---

You leftists really do live in your own reality, don't you?

---

No, free speech is pretty basic to American reality.

---

If HAMAS is a designated terrorist organization by the U.S. (and since 1997), and protestors say, "We are HAMAS!" while chanting "Death to America!," would that be simply 'free speech'?

---

By that I think you mean could the government succesfully prosecute the students for making a terrisitc threat? Doubtful. "Death to America" is not imminent action and the students are not going to cause imminent action.

If they said burn the federal courthouse that more specfic statement is going to be more actionable. If they said burn the federal courthouse while stockpiling kerosene or publishing diagrams, defintitely yes.

Again the First Amendment exists to protect offensive political speech.

---

"Death to America" is not imminent action and the students are not going to cause imminent action."

You don't know that, nor can you expect anyone else to downplay the threat to your level. And it doesn't even have to be "imminent" in order to be considered a violent threat.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Also, this thread is not big on free speech. What is the difference between the First and Second Amendments?

---

You leftists really do live in your own reality, don't you?

---

No, free speech is pretty basic to American reality.

---

If HAMAS is a designated terrorist organization by the U.S. (and since 1997), and protestors say, "We are HAMAS!" while chanting "Death to America!," would that be simply 'free speech'?

---

By that I think you mean could the government succesfully prosecute the students for making a terrisitc threat? Doubtful. "Death to America" is not imminent action and the students are not going to cause imminent action.

If they said burn the federal courthouse that more specfic statement is going to be more actionable. If they said burn the federal courthouse while stockpiling kerosene or publishing diagrams, defintitely yes.

Again the First Amendment exists to protect offensive political speech.

---

"Death to America" is not imminent action and the students are not going to cause imminent action."

You don't know that, nor can you expect anyone else to downplay the threat to your level. And it doesn't even have to be "imminent" in order to be considered a violent threat.

---

Verbatim from the Texas terroristic threat statute:

"threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person … with intent to place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury."

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Also, this thread is not big on free speech. What is the difference between the First and Second Amendments?

---

You leftists really do live in your own reality, don't you?

---

No, free speech is pretty basic to American reality.

---

If HAMAS is a designated terrorist organization by the U.S. (and since 1997), and protestors say, "We are HAMAS!" while chanting "Death to America!," would that be simply 'free speech'?

---

By that I think you mean could the government succesfully prosecute the students for making a terrisitc threat? Doubtful. "Death to America" is not imminent action and the students are not going to cause imminent action.

If they said burn the federal courthouse that more specfic statement is going to be more actionable. If they said burn the federal courthouse while stockpiling kerosene or publishing diagrams, defintitely yes.

Again the First Amendment exists to protect offensive political speech.

---

"Death to America" is not imminent action and the students are not going to cause imminent action."

You don't know that, nor can you expect anyone else to downplay the threat to your level. And it doesn't even have to be "imminent" in order to be considered a violent threat.

---

Verbatim from the Texas terroristic threat statute:

"threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person … with intent to place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury."

---

"intent to place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury"

Relevant part bolded, These mobs are in clear, direct and repeated violation of that law.

Especially since actual violence - notably not addressed by police - has occurred in numerous places.

Frank Galvin said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Also, this thread is not big on free speech. What is the difference between the First and Second Amendments?

---

Big difference between "free speech," as you call it, and the heckler's veto. The latter is what is taking place at Columbia, with pro-Hamas students harassing people for merely being Jewish. Yesterday, they formed a human chain to specifically prevent Jewish students from entering buildings.

Instead of "free speech," it is something more akin to this:

---

I am certain both types of speech are happening. Anyone preventing access to public buildings is disturbing the peace. Someone who threatens the person or property of another with intent to follow through is making a criminal threat. If someone lays hands on another, it is assault. Arrest and remove them, which it sounds like the school is doing.

---

My question is what consequences, if any, are these students being "arrested" facing other than possibly they now have a police record? Looks like they're just being quickly released and for the most part subsequently laughing it off with their fellow terrorist supporters. What good does getting arrested do if the consequences aren't serious enough to at least have a deterrent affect?

---

First, "just having a police record" is not a small thing.

Second, another American thing we do is "presumed innocent until proven guilty." You seem to believe that we don't need courts to determine that which is troubling.

Third, it is a misdemeanor. I am sure bail/bond is handled just like other misdemeanors.

The understanding of the Consittuion around here is insanely low.

---

Actually reading comprehension around here is insanely low for certain posters such as yourself. Where did I say I didn't believe in "innocent until proven guilty" or that we don't need courts to adjudicate things?? And please, don't lecture me on the Constitution, which you and your ilk are constantly finding ways to trash and crap on.

And given the way many criminals are allowed to just walk these days, how can you or anyone be so "sure" the bail/bond process was properly carried out for these criminals? These people are openly and publicly violating the law and there should be serious consequences for doing so - yes through the court system - but the court system needs to do its job which in too many cases lately it isn't doing.

Frank Galvin said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Also, this thread is not big on free speech. What is the difference between the First and Second Amendments?

---

Big difference between "free speech," as you call it, and the heckler's veto. The latter is what is taking place at Columbia, with pro-Hamas students harassing people for merely being Jewish. Yesterday, they formed a human chain to specifically prevent Jewish students from entering buildings.

Instead of "free speech," it is something more akin to this:

---

I am certain both types of speech are happening. Anyone preventing access to public buildings is disturbing the peace. Someone who threatens the person or property of another with intent to follow through is making a criminal threat. If someone lays hands on another, it is assault. Arrest and remove them, which it sounds like the school is doing.

---

My question is what consequences, if any, are these students being "arrested" facing other than possibly they now have a police record? Looks like they're just being quickly released and for the most part subsequently laughing it off with their fellow terrorist supporters. What good does getting arrested do if the consequences aren't serious enough to at least have a deterrent affect?

---

First, "just having a police record" is not a small thing.

Second, another American thing we do is "presumed innocent until proven guilty." You seem to believe that we don't need courts to determine that which is troubling.

Third, it is a misdemeanor. I am sure bail/bond is handled just like other misdemeanors.

The understanding of the Consittuion around here is insanely low.

---

We do innocent until proven guilty??????


where have you been for the last 20+ years where the media declares someone guilty and their picture is everywhere and even after a trial people still think they are guilty?

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Also, this thread is not big on free speech. What is the difference between the First and Second Amendments?

---

You leftists really do live in your own reality, don't you?

---

No, free speech is pretty basic to American reality.

---

But let me guess....

You had no problem limiting speech for anyone that asked questions about the origin of covid, safety of vaccines, legality of vaccine passports, having to show proof of vaccination to get a job, enter a restaurant, etc..

You were probably ok with those types of speech being shut down and with the left talking about making those illegal....

---

You guess wrong.

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Also, this thread is not big on free speech. What is the difference between the First and Second Amendments?

---

You leftists really do live in your own reality, don't you?

---

No, free speech is pretty basic to American reality.

---

If HAMAS is a designated terrorist organization by the U.S. (and since 1997), and protestors say, "We are HAMAS!" while chanting "Death to America!," would that be simply 'free speech'?

---

By that I think you mean could the government succesfully prosecute the students for making a terrisitc threat? Doubtful. "Death to America" is not imminent action and the students are not going to cause imminent action.

If they said burn the federal courthouse that more specfic statement is going to be more actionable. If they said burn the federal courthouse while stockpiling kerosene or publishing diagrams, defintitely yes.

Again the First Amendment exists to protect offensive political speech.

---

"Death to America" is not imminent action and the students are not going to cause imminent action."

You don't know that, nor can you expect anyone else to downplay the threat to your level. And it doesn't even have to be "imminent" in order to be considered a violent threat.

---

Verbatim from the Texas terroristic threat statute:

"threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person … with intent to place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury."

---

Speech doesn't have to qualify as a "terroristic threat" under Texas statute in order to be considered unprotected.

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Also, this thread is not big on free speech. What is the difference between the First and Second Amendments?

---

Big difference between "free speech," as you call it, and the heckler's veto. The latter is what is taking place at Columbia, with pro-Hamas students harassing people for merely being Jewish. Yesterday, they formed a human chain to specifically prevent Jewish students from entering buildings.

Instead of "free speech," it is something more akin to this:

---

I am certain both types of speech are happening. Anyone preventing access to public buildings is disturbing the peace. Someone who threatens the person or property of another with intent to follow through is making a criminal threat. If someone lays hands on another, it is assault. Arrest and remove them, which it sounds like the school is doing.

---

My question is what consequences, if any, are these students being "arrested" facing other than possibly they now have a police record? Looks like they're just being quickly released and for the most part subsequently laughing it off with their fellow terrorist supporters. What good does getting arrested do if the consequences aren't serious enough to at least have a deterrent affect?

---

First, "just having a police record" is not a small thing.

Second, another American thing we do is "presumed innocent until proven guilty." You seem to believe that we don't need courts to determine that which is troubling.

Third, it is a misdemeanor. I am sure bail/bond is handled just like other misdemeanors.

The understanding of the Consittuion around here is insanely low.

---

We do innocent until proven guilty??????


where have you been for the last 20+ years where the media declares someone guilty and their picture is everywhere and even after a trial people still think they are guilty?

---

To your point - Exhibit A: Donald Trump and many of his closest associates.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Also, this thread is not big on free speech. What is the difference between the First and Second Amendments?

---

You leftists really do live in your own reality, don't you?

---

No, free speech is pretty basic to American reality.

---

If HAMAS is a designated terrorist organization by the U.S. (and since 1997), and protestors say, "We are HAMAS!" while chanting "Death to America!," would that be simply 'free speech'?

---

By that I think you mean could the government succesfully prosecute the students for making a terrisitc threat? Doubtful. "Death to America" is not imminent action and the students are not going to cause imminent action.

If they said burn the federal courthouse that more specfic statement is going to be more actionable. If they said burn the federal courthouse while stockpiling kerosene or publishing diagrams, defintitely yes.

Again the First Amendment exists to protect offensive political speech.

---

"Death to America" is not imminent action and the students are not going to cause imminent action."

You don't know that, nor can you expect anyone else to downplay the threat to your level. And it doesn't even have to be "imminent" in order to be considered a violent threat.

---

Verbatim from the Texas terroristic threat statute:

"threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person … with intent to place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury."

---

Speech doesn't have to qualify as a "terroristic threat" under Texas statute in order to be considered unprotected.

---

The presumption is all speech is protected. It is removed from protection for specifc reasons: libel/slander; public safety; national security; safety and liberty of others.

Why should we remove Death to America from the protections of the First Amendment. What is the legal rationale?

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Also, this thread is not big on free speech. What is the difference between the First and Second Amendments?

---

You leftists really do live in your own reality, don't you?

---

No, free speech is pretty basic to American reality.

---

But let me guess....

You had no problem limiting speech for anyone that asked questions about the origin of covid, safety of vaccines, legality of vaccine passports, having to show proof of vaccination to get a job, enter a restaurant, etc..

You were probably ok with those types of speech being shut down and with the left talking about making those illegal....

---

You guess wrong.

---

I doubt that. The more you post the more i see you are ok with certain speech being allowed (if it is from the left) and certain speech (from the right) being banned.


You clearly believe what the media tells you to, like Jan 6th we were mere minutes away from our government being torn down and that poor AOC was in fear for her life (even though she was in a different building).

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Also, this thread is not big on free speech. What is the difference between the First and Second Amendments?

---

Big difference between "free speech," as you call it, and the heckler's veto. The latter is what is taking place at Columbia, with pro-Hamas students harassing people for merely being Jewish. Yesterday, they formed a human chain to specifically prevent Jewish students from entering buildings.

Instead of "free speech," it is something more akin to this:

---

I am certain both types of speech are happening. Anyone preventing access to public buildings is disturbing the peace. Someone who threatens the person or property of another with intent to follow through is making a criminal threat. If someone lays hands on another, it is assault. Arrest and remove them, which it sounds like the school is doing.


Offensive speech like Death to America and war criminal or flag burning is protected. It has to be for the First Amendment to have any meaning.

---

Saying "death" to a country is not protected free speech. Maybe you should learn what the first amendment is first.

---

It is a political statement which gets the most protection under the First Amendment. On the other hand it is anti-American. The relevant precedent is Bradenburg v. Ohio where SCOTUS phrased the test this way:

Government cannot censor anti-government speech unless it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." College kids chanting is not specifc enough to say there is imminentn lawless action and is not likely to produce that action. It is most certanly free speech protected by the First Amendement just as burning American flags is.

Of course Columbia is not the government and it can do whatever it feels appropriate to student chanters.

---

"Death to America" and "Death to Israel" are chants that are widely known to be associated with actual physical violence to American and Israeli people, so it can not be viewed simply as political speech.

---

"Heil Hitler" is even more widely known to be speech associated with torturing and killing Jews. We protect the right to say that.

There has to be a danger the offensive speech will be acted on for it to be censored.

https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/legal-documents/4156_ri_1978.pdf

---

A Nazi salute is not a call for the death of a specific group. You know the difference here, you're just a shameless apologetic for the left.

---

I have explained the reasoning and cited the Supreme Court case that provides it. You have called me names.

BTW, ask a Jew if if the Nazi salute is not a call for the death of a specifc group. If the salute means one thing it means people who give the salute are willing to execute Jews. Similarly did we prosecute the Charlottesville fine people who marched with fire chanting "Jews will not replace us" or "Blood and Soil"? Same thing-reference to abhorrent, offensive concepts is still free speech unless it is intended to be acted on and there is chance it will be acted on.

---

No, I didn't call you names, I just stated what I believe to be fact, that leftists like yourself don't live in the same reality as rational people.

A Nazi salute may indicate a person who may agree to a call for the death of Jews, but it is not itself a specific call for the death of Jews. Just like a wearing a white hood and blacks. There is an easy difference to grasp here between a salute and the wearing of a white hood and the actual speech that calls for the death of a specific group.

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Also, this thread is not big on free speech. What is the difference between the First and Second Amendments?

---

You leftists really do live in your own reality, don't you?

---

No, free speech is pretty basic to American reality.

---

If HAMAS is a designated terrorist organization by the U.S. (and since 1997), and protestors say, "We are HAMAS!" while chanting "Death to America!," would that be simply 'free speech'?

---

By that I think you mean could the government succesfully prosecute the students for making a terrisitc threat? Doubtful. "Death to America" is not imminent action and the students are not going to cause imminent action.

If they said burn the federal courthouse that more specfic statement is going to be more actionable. If they said burn the federal courthouse while stockpiling kerosene or publishing diagrams, defintitely yes.

Again the First Amendment exists to protect offensive political speech.

---

"Death to America" is not imminent action and the students are not going to cause imminent action."

You don't know that, nor can you expect anyone else to downplay the threat to your level. And it doesn't even have to be "imminent" in order to be considered a violent threat.

---

Verbatim from the Texas terroristic threat statute:

"threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person … with intent to place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury."

---

Speech doesn't have to qualify as a "terroristic threat" under Texas statute in order to be considered unprotected.

---

The presumption is all speech is protected. It is removed from protection for specifc reasons: libel/slander; public safety; national security; safety and liberty of others.

Why should we remove Death to America from the protections of the First Amendment. What is the legal rationale?

---

You answer your own question.

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Also, this thread is not big on free speech. What is the difference between the First and Second Amendments?

---

You leftists really do live in your own reality, don't you?

---

No, free speech is pretty basic to American reality.

---

But let me guess....

You had no problem limiting speech for anyone that asked questions about the origin of covid, safety of vaccines, legality of vaccine passports, having to show proof of vaccination to get a job, enter a restaurant, etc..

You were probably ok with those types of speech being shut down and with the left talking about making those illegal....

---

You guess wrong.

---

I doubt that. The more you post the more i see you are ok with certain speech being allowed (if it is from the left) and certain speech (from the right) being banned.


You clearly believe what the media tells you to, like Jan 6th we were mere minutes away from our government being torn down and that poor AOC was in fear for her life (even though she was in a different building).

---

You can't cite one thing I have ever said that calls for banning or prosecuting any speech.

You just assume if I am for allowing left leaning speech I am against right leaning sppech. Much like the ACLU (which is why I posted the link) I am in favor of allowing almost all speech.

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Also, this thread is not big on free speech. What is the difference between the First and Second Amendments?

---

You leftists really do live in your own reality, don't you?

---

No, free speech is pretty basic to American reality.

---

If HAMAS is a designated terrorist organization by the U.S. (and since 1997), and protestors say, "We are HAMAS!" while chanting "Death to America!," would that be simply 'free speech'?

---

By that I think you mean could the government succesfully prosecute the students for making a terrisitc threat? Doubtful. "Death to America" is not imminent action and the students are not going to cause imminent action.

If they said burn the federal courthouse that more specfic statement is going to be more actionable. If they said burn the federal courthouse while stockpiling kerosene or publishing diagrams, defintitely yes.

Again the First Amendment exists to protect offensive political speech.

---

"Death to America" is not imminent action and the students are not going to cause imminent action."

You don't know that, nor can you expect anyone else to downplay the threat to your level. And it doesn't even have to be "imminent" in order to be considered a violent threat.

---

Verbatim from the Texas terroristic threat statute:

"threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person … with intent to place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury."

---

Speech doesn't have to qualify as a "terroristic threat" under Texas statute in order to be considered unprotected.

---

The presumption is all speech is protected. It is removed from protection for specifc reasons: libel/slander; public safety; national security; safety and liberty of others.

Why should we remove Death to America from the protections of the First Amendment. What is the legal rationale?

---

You answer your own question.

---

You just ignore the law to fit your opinion. Yes safety can be a reason for censorship. For that to work there must be an actual threat to safety whihc is the point of Ohio v. Brandenburg and which is why I said if the students are obstructive, destructiove or have an intent to cause imminent harm and can do so to arrest them.

Chanting random stupid and offensive things does not meet that test.

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Also, this thread is not big on free speech. What is the difference between the First and Second Amendments?

---

You leftists really do live in your own reality, don't you?

---

No, free speech is pretty basic to American reality.

---

If HAMAS is a designated terrorist organization by the U.S. (and since 1997), and protestors say, "We are HAMAS!" while chanting "Death to America!," would that be simply 'free speech'?

---

By that I think you mean could the government succesfully prosecute the students for making a terrisitc threat? Doubtful. "Death to America" is not imminent action and the students are not going to cause imminent action.

If they said burn the federal courthouse that more specfic statement is going to be more actionable. If they said burn the federal courthouse while stockpiling kerosene or publishing diagrams, defintitely yes.

Again the First Amendment exists to protect offensive political speech.

---

"Death to America" is not imminent action and the students are not going to cause imminent action."

You don't know that, nor can you expect anyone else to downplay the threat to your level. And it doesn't even have to be "imminent" in order to be considered a violent threat.

---

Verbatim from the Texas terroristic threat statute:

"threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person … with intent to place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury."

---

Speech doesn't have to qualify as a "terroristic threat" under Texas statute in order to be considered unprotected.

---

The presumption is all speech is protected. It is removed from protection for specifc reasons: libel/slander; public safety; national security; safety and liberty of others.

Why should we remove Death to America from the protections of the First Amendment. What is the legal rationale?

---

You're deflecting. Do you see why your argument is wrong? Imminency is a factor in determining if speech qualifies as "terroristic" in the state of Texas, but it is NOT a factor in determining whether or not that speech should be protected, which is what you argued.

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Also, this thread is not big on free speech. What is the difference between the First and Second Amendments?

---

You leftists really do live in your own reality, don't you?

---

No, free speech is pretty basic to American reality.

---

If HAMAS is a designated terrorist organization by the U.S. (and since 1997), and protestors say, "We are HAMAS!" while chanting "Death to America!," would that be simply 'free speech'?

---

By that I think you mean could the government succesfully prosecute the students for making a terrisitc threat? Doubtful. "Death to America" is not imminent action and the students are not going to cause imminent action.

If they said burn the federal courthouse that more specfic statement is going to be more actionable. If they said burn the federal courthouse while stockpiling kerosene or publishing diagrams, defintitely yes.

Again the First Amendment exists to protect offensive political speech.

---

"Death to America" is not imminent action and the students are not going to cause imminent action."

You don't know that, nor can you expect anyone else to downplay the threat to your level. And it doesn't even have to be "imminent" in order to be considered a violent threat.

---

Verbatim from the Texas terroristic threat statute:

"threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person … with intent to place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury."

---

Speech doesn't have to qualify as a "terroristic threat" under Texas statute in order to be considered unprotected.

---

The presumption is all speech is protected. It is removed from protection for specifc reasons: libel/slander; public safety; national security; safety and liberty of others.

Why should we remove Death to America from the protections of the First Amendment. What is the legal rationale?

---

You answer your own question.

---

That's what I was about to say, after I called him out for deflecting.

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Also, this thread is not big on free speech. What is the difference between the First and Second Amendments?

---

You leftists really do live in your own reality, don't you?

---

No, free speech is pretty basic to American reality.

---

But let me guess....

You had no problem limiting speech for anyone that asked questions about the origin of covid, safety of vaccines, legality of vaccine passports, having to show proof of vaccination to get a job, enter a restaurant, etc..

You were probably ok with those types of speech being shut down and with the left talking about making those illegal....

---

You guess wrong.

---

I doubt that. The more you post the more i see you are ok with certain speech being allowed (if it is from the left) and certain speech (from the right) being banned.


You clearly believe what the media tells you to, like Jan 6th we were mere minutes away from our government being torn down and that poor AOC was in fear for her life (even though she was in a different building).

---

You can't cite one thing I have ever said that calls for banning or prosecuting any speech.

You just assume if I am for allowing left leaning speech I am against right leaning sppech. Much like the ACLU (which is why I posted the link) I am in favor of allowing almost all speech.

---

Actually yes I can.

The ACLU is NOT for allowing all types of speech. So that there is my proof. That you would cite a group that HAS tried to limit speech is all the proof I need.

Fore example, the ACLU will no longer defend groups on the far right or any speech THEY deem as hate speech.

And for a group that supposedly fights for the Constitution it is a shame they violated that innocent until proven guilty thing you mentioned earlier.....

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Also, this thread is not big on free speech. What is the difference between the First and Second Amendments?

---

You leftists really do live in your own reality, don't you?

---

No, free speech is pretty basic to American reality.

---

If HAMAS is a designated terrorist organization by the U.S. (and since 1997), and protestors say, "We are HAMAS!" while chanting "Death to America!," would that be simply 'free speech'?

---

By that I think you mean could the government succesfully prosecute the students for making a terrisitc threat? Doubtful. "Death to America" is not imminent action and the students are not going to cause imminent action.

If they said burn the federal courthouse that more specfic statement is going to be more actionable. If they said burn the federal courthouse while stockpiling kerosene or publishing diagrams, defintitely yes.

Again the First Amendment exists to protect offensive political speech.

---

"Death to America" is not imminent action and the students are not going to cause imminent action."

You don't know that, nor can you expect anyone else to downplay the threat to your level. And it doesn't even have to be "imminent" in order to be considered a violent threat.

---

Verbatim from the Texas terroristic threat statute:

"threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person … with intent to place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury."

---

Speech doesn't have to qualify as a "terroristic threat" under Texas statute in order to be considered unprotected.

---

The presumption is all speech is protected. It is removed from protection for specifc reasons: libel/slander; public safety; national security; safety and liberty of others.

Why should we remove Death to America from the protections of the First Amendment. What is the legal rationale?

---

You're deflecting. Do you see why your argument is wrong? Imminency is a factor in determining if speech qualifies as "terroristic" in the state of Texas, but it is NOT a factor in determining whether or not that speech should be protected, which is what you argued.

---

You won't do well in law schoool. It is the government's burden to demonstrate why speech is not protected; the speaker does not have to show why it is protected.

If you are saying that Death to America speech is not protected because it is a terroristic threat then you have to prove it is a terrostic threat; imminent harm is an essential part of that proof. If you are saying death to America is not protected for some other reason, tell me what that reason is.

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Also, this thread is not big on free speech. What is the difference between the First and Second Amendments?

---

You leftists really do live in your own reality, don't you?

---

No, free speech is pretty basic to American reality.

---

If HAMAS is a designated terrorist organization by the U.S. (and since 1997), and protestors say, "We are HAMAS!" while chanting "Death to America!," would that be simply 'free speech'?

---

By that I think you mean could the government succesfully prosecute the students for making a terrisitc threat? Doubtful. "Death to America" is not imminent action and the students are not going to cause imminent action.

If they said burn the federal courthouse that more specfic statement is going to be more actionable. If they said burn the federal courthouse while stockpiling kerosene or publishing diagrams, defintitely yes.

Again the First Amendment exists to protect offensive political speech.

---

"Death to America" is not imminent action and the students are not going to cause imminent action."

You don't know that, nor can you expect anyone else to downplay the threat to your level. And it doesn't even have to be "imminent" in order to be considered a violent threat.

---

Verbatim from the Texas terroristic threat statute:

"threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person … with intent to place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury."

---

Speech doesn't have to qualify as a "terroristic threat" under Texas statute in order to be considered unprotected.

---

The presumption is all speech is protected. It is removed from protection for specifc reasons: libel/slander; public safety; national security; safety and liberty of others.

Why should we remove Death to America from the protections of the First Amendment. What is the legal rationale?

---

You answer your own question.

---

You just ignore the law to fit your opinion. Yes safety can be a reason for censorship. For that to work there must be an actual threat to safety whihc is the point of Ohio v. Brandenburg and which is why I said if the students are obstructive, destructiove or have an intent to cause imminent harm and can do so to arrest them.

Chanting random stupid and offensive things does not meet that test.

---

Yes it does.

IN citing that case you left out the part where the court said that if the speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite pr produce such action."

So they are chanting death to America, Death to Israel and then (as even you have admitted) being arrested for being destructive, harming others, etc.

Which would show their speech fits that part of the case that their speech then led to harm.