cowboycwr said:

---

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.....

---

What are you talking about?

The ACLU has a long history of fighting for free speech to include the KKK and anti-LGBTQ activists. It is just as active in fightng for criminal defendants.

https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech#:~:text=Over%20the%20years%2C%20the%20ACLU,LGBT%20activists%2C%20and%20flag%20burners.

Can you show me something from the ACLU that supports your version?

cowboycwr said:

---

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."

---

Again from my post:

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 imminent 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.

Compare and contrast with what you said I left out.

Try it this way: what is the imminent danger that the students intend to provoke and there is a chance will provoke by chnating Death to America or We are Hamas or somehting just as dumb?

I'm waiting for day anti-Christian or anti-whiteism gets as much pushback as anti-semitism.

The_barBEARian said:

---

I'm waiting for day anti-Christian or anti-whiteism gets as much pushback as anti-semitism.

---

So am I

Wangchung said:

---

Whiskey Pete said:

---

I find it wildly ironic that the From the River to the Sea wackos insist on trying to label Trump and his supporters as Nazis.

Their utter lack of self awareness is completely astounding.z

But, I shouldn't be surprised the generation that grew up eating Tide Pods are now calling for Death to America.

---

The Nazis didn't see themselves the way everyone else saw them, either. They had their narrative and everyone else was simply wrong, evil and inferior. Their media reinforced that narrative, just like today.

---

Exactly. I have often wondered how in the world those people in Nazi Germany could simply be silent or in many cases totally support what they did. There have been several drama-documentaries that have delved into the propaganda and the mindset that was prevalent in the day. They thought they were righteous, they thought they were superior, they thought their way was the only right way. They thought all other ways were evil or unworthy.

We are seeing this exact mindset with the progressive left. What has happened in Israel has just drawn back the curtain to put it on full display.

My guess also is Columbia would have tolerated this had they not disprupted normal Campus operations. Also, this.........

Quote:

---

120 arrested at NYU while Columbia donor pulls funding as pro-Palestine protests sweep college campuses.

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

You called me a "shameless apolegetic (sic) for the left"

And the reality I live in is that the Supreme COurt defines the parametrs of the First Amendment.

Finally defending Nazii salutes and white hoods as harmless while contending pro-Palestinian chants are criminal threats is seriously weird.

---

Ok, but "shameless apologetic" is not name calling.

I don't think you're making your case that the SC's parameter agree with what you're saying.

And I'm not "defending" Nazi salutes or white hoods, they are immensely stupid and harmful. I'm saying they are not the same as calling for the actual "death" of a specific group of people, which is relevant to our discussion on free speech.

Frank Galvin said:

---

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.

---

If I won't do well in law school, then that's more likely an indictment of law school, to be frank.

Regardless, you don't have to be able to do well in law school to know logical BS when you see it. You are making a strawman argument, saying "If you are saying that 'Death to America' is not protected because it is a terroristic threat". No, I never narrowed it that way. I only said that it can be a violent threat:

- all terrorist threats are violent threats;
- but not all violent threats are terrorist threats;
- any violent threat is not protected speech

Anti-Israel student protesters are now occupying the California State Polytechnic University.

They have barricaded the entrance with couches, chairs and desks.

What started in Columbia is spreading like wildfire across the country@V24Investigates pic.twitter.com/YUDvqeB317

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) April 23, 2024

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

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.....

---

What are you talking about?

The ACLU has a long history of fighting for free speech to include the KKK and anti-LGBTQ activists. It is just as active in fightng for criminal defendants.

https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech#:~:text=Over%20the%20years%2C%20the%20ACLU,LGBT%20activists%2C%20and%20flag%20burners.

Can you show me something from the ACLU that supports your version?

---

I understand your defense of the 1st amendment, but I will say that there is a different perception of the ACLU these days and it's not just coming from the extreme right.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html

Frank Galvin said:

---

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.

---

I think the law is as crystal clear as the statement, "Death to America!" The people advocating this, and the people who financed these demonstrations are violating the law. They have crossed the Rubicon.

18 U.S. Code 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or

Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or

Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

As used in this section, the terms "organizes" and "organize", with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.

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:

---

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.

---

Don't disagree. You have a right to make an ass of yourself as long as it doesn't harm or impinge on others' rights.

But I don't see anyone say arrest them for the stuff they're saying.

Edit: Well, now I am not so sure.

boognish_bear said:

---

Anti-Israel student protesters are now occupying the California State Polytechnic University.

They have barricaded the entrance with couches, chairs and desks.

What started in Columbia is spreading like wildfire across the country@V24Investigates pic.twitter.com/YUDvqeB317

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) April 23, 2024

---

You think Gavin will handle this the way Ronald Reagan did in 1969?

muddybrazos said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

I'm waiting for day anti-Christian or anti-whiteism gets as much pushback as anti-semitism.

---

You'll be waiting forever or until White Christians form their own version of the ADL to fight for our rights as a group.

---

Funny enough the LDS Church (Mormons) thought about founding a ADL/NAACP type organization to protect Mormon rights and from slander.

They were also interested in making it a more broad based American Christian type organization.

And when they asked Mitt Romney about it he said it would be a bad idea.

[After being asked by senior apostle M. Russell Ballard to form a Latter-day Saint version of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League, apparently to counter wrongs slung at the Salt Lake City-based faith by outsiders, the Utah Republican, then weighing his Senate run, ultimately declined.]

No...I mean who want wanted a well funded organization out there fighting on their behalf in the Media, in the Congress, and in the law courts?

Malbec said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

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.

---

I think the law is as crystal clear as the statement, "Death to America!" The people advocating this, and the people who financed these demonstrations are violating the law. They have crossed the Rubicon.

18 U.S. Code 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or

Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or

Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

As used in this section, the terms "organizes" and "organize", with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.

---

The words you miss from the statute, whihch are repeated in each defintion of criminal conduct, are "by force or violence." The question would be whether someone chanting "Death to America" is actually advocating a violent overthrow of our government. So again context matters. If you are part of a group who plans attacks on the government or advcates fro attacks o the government, yes the speech is criminal.

But these college students are not planning to attack the government nor are they are not advising or encouraging others to attack the government. They are saying our system is unjust and supposrts unjust allies. (To be clear, they are dead wrong).

To be censored speech needs to be far more specific that what people are complaining about here.

90sBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

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.....

---

What are you talking about?

The ACLU has a long history of fighting for free speech to include the KKK and anti-LGBTQ activists. It is just as active in fightng for criminal defendants.

https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech#:~:text=Over%20the%20years%2C%20the%20ACLU,LGBT%20activists%2C%20and%20flag%20burners.

Can you show me something from the ACLU that supports your version?

---

I understand your defense of the 1st amendment, but I will say that there is a different perception of the ACLU these days and it's not just coming from the extreme right.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html

---

I appreciate that. I wonder if that is still an issue 2.5 years after the article was written while Trump was out of power.

Regardless, while the article raises concenrs it does give several specfic and recent examples of the ACLU defending the free speech rights of conservative groups.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

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.

---

If I won't do well in law school, then that's more likely an indictment of law school, to be frank.

Regardless, you don't have to be able to do well in law school to know logical BS when you see it. You are making a strawman argument, saying "If you are saying that 'Death to America' is not protected because it is a terroristic threat". No, I never narrowed it that way. I only said that it can be a violent threat:

- all terrorist threats are violent threats;
- but not all violent threats are terrorist threats;
- any violent threat is not protected speech

---

The First Amendment protects against censorship.

The government censors by making speech criminal through a statute.

The question will always be whether the criminal statute censoring the speech is unconstitutional because of the First Amendment. To decide that issue you have to use the words of the statute. That is what I did. The statute is about terroristic threats and requires intent and ability to cause imminent harm.

"Violent threat" is just a made up, abstract concept. It is not a statute and therefore not a means of censorship. It has nothing to do wihth the analysis at all.

Malbec said:

---

So they are advocating the death of America by peaceful means? Seems like a logical interpretation. /s

---

That is the point. What exactly, are they advocating? If you can't tell, you can't prosecute.

They may be calling on Allah to rain natural disaster on us. Or for the electorate to wake up and institute Sharia law. Or for jihadists to commmander planes to attack the Pentagon, World Trade Center, and Capitol. One of those is actionable.

Frank Galvin said:

---

Malbec said:

---

So they are advocating the death of America by peaceful means? Seems like a logical interpretation. /s

---

That is the point. What exactly, are they advocating? If you can't tell, you can't prosecute?

They may be calling on Allah to rain natural disaster on us. Or for the electorate to wake up and institute Sharia law. Or for jihadists to commmander planes to attack the Pentagon, World Trade Center, and Capitol. One of those is actionable.

---

So somebody has to die before the Death to America chants are taken seriously by this administration? I do not think that is a good plan, Frank.

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

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.

---

If I won't do well in law school, then that's more likely an indictment of law school, to be frank.

Regardless, you don't have to be able to do well in law school to know logical BS when you see it. You are making a strawman argument, saying "If you are saying that 'Death to America' is not protected because it is a terroristic threat". No, I never narrowed it that way. I only said that it can be a violent threat:

- all terrorist threats are violent threats;
- but not all violent threats are terrorist threats;
- any violent threat is not protected speech

---

The First Amendment protects against censorship.

The government censors by making speech criminal through a statute.

The question will always be whether the criminal statute censoring the speech is unconstitutional because of the First Amendment. To decide that issue you have to use the words of the statute. That is what I did. The statute is about terroristic threats and requires intent and ability to cause imminent harm.

"Violent threat" is just a made up, abstract concept. It is not a statute and therefore not a means of censorship. It has nothing to do wihth the analysis at all.

---

So, only terrorist threats are real, and all others are just "abstract" concepts??

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Malbec said:

---

So they are advocating the death of America by peaceful means? Seems like a logical interpretation. /s

---

That is the point. What exactly, are they advocating? If you can't tell, you can't prosecute?

They may be calling on Allah to rain natural disaster on us. Or for the electorate to wake up and institute Sharia law. Or for jihadists to commmander planes to attack the Pentagon, World Trade Center, and Capitol. One of those is actionable.

---

So somebody has to die before the Death to America chants are taken seriously by this administration? I do not think that is a good plan, Frank.

---

I don't think it is a good ideaa to limit speech based on speech alone.

As far as the adminstration I think you missed the fact that the demonstrators are demonstrating against the administration.