🇳🇱
I am really mixed on this one: https://www.rawstory.com/trump-in-jail/
On the one hand seeing Trump in jail would please me greatly. On the other I'm left asking how a judge has the right to restrain free speech at all. saying someone should "rot in hell" outside of court and having that land you in jail seems like a huge violation.
Idk it seems like the whole point of having a court system is the first place is to prevent parties from being pressured to withdraw, drop the dispute, with public letter writing campaigns
Just STFU. When it’s over you can tell everyone how you’re poor now and your life is ruined. That’s free speech.
@jenny_wu Threatening people is illegal with or without a court order. If he said "this man should be murdered" then I would agree with you. But "he should rot in hell", no thats not even a threat.
@freemo @jenny_wu Taken very literally, "X should be murdered" is not a threat: it's simply a statement about a world you'd prefer to live in. Obviously that approach makes no sense, because then well-understood codes speech becomes a way to skirt around any laws prohibiting threats.
If one tries to include various coded threats, then the statement itself is not enough to detemine whether it's a threat: the whole point of coded speech is to make it easy to read for intended recipients and hard to convincingly convey to others, so it relies on lots of context.
@realcaseyrollins @jenny_wu @freemo @robryk Vocally supporting violence is protected by the first amendment. Committing or inciting violence is not.
@LouisIngenthron @realcaseyrollins @freemo @robryk
Narrow place-and-time restrictions. Wishing that the complainant would be murdered and burn in hell is a given, really. That cathartic speech can wait until after the lawyers are paid.
It says “Congress shall make no law” but the judiciary can impose reasonable restrictions with proceedings in motion.
If a law is what grants the powert to the judiciary then its a violation.
Obviously I do agree with the general consensus here that directly intimidating a witness goes beyond free speech of course. My issue is not with him going to jail for legit threats, in fact I'd **want** that. My issue is that the judge talked about it being legitimate to send him to jail for saying "rot in hell", to me that feels like a violation. Even if we can argue legally it isnt, it should be.
@freemo @LouisIngenthron @realcaseyrollins @robryk
2. The capitalization in the message suggests that Trump wants the prosecutor in hell, preferably immediately, and ideally without leaving God or the prosecutor any choice in the matter.
3. Saying it on Christmas adds another layer of nastiness that reflects poorly on the office of the former President, his family, caregivers, and the professional competence of legal counsel who are duty bound to protect his and their own reputations.
The capitalization in the message suggests that Trump wants the prosecutor in hell, preferably immediately, and ideally without leaving God or the prosecutor any choice in the matter.
That seems like an aweful lot you are infering without cause from a simple capitalization. Courts are suppose to act on facts, not assumptions.
Saying it on Christmas adds another layer of nastiness that reflects poorly on the office of the former President, his family, caregivers, and the professional competence of legal counsel who are duty bound to protect his and their own reputations.
Being nasty isnt illegal. It is a totally valid reason to dislike the man, not a valid reason, in and of itself, to justify jailing him. Besides there are plenty more legit reasons that could cause him to wind up in jail, best we stick to those IMO.
@freemo @jenny_wu @LouisIngenthron @robryk I would also argue that if we’re going to jail people for nastiness, there might be better targets for prosecution, such as #RichardSpencer, #NickFuentes, or #ye (depending on whether or not he’s currently in a state of mania ofc)
@realcaseyrollins @freemo @LouisIngenthron @robryk
Young men with no professional development and too much social media ragebait are a different animal entirely. They are not senile, and they are not disqualified from ever serving office by the Insurrection clause. Also they are not criminal defendants at the moment
@jenny_wu @freemo @LouisIngenthron @robryk #Trump isn’t disqualified from ever serving office by the Insurrection clause since he did not participate nor orchestrate an insurrection. Setting that aside, are you saying that if you have the qualifications and experience to hold public office, being “nasty” should be illegal? That’s kind of a weird take.
@realcaseyrollins @freemo @LouisIngenthron @robryk
The slippery slope is just not worthy of consideration.
“But if we tell Trump to maybe stop being a shithead then what will happen to all these other shitheads on tiktok? Every American has the right to be a shithead on the China app”
对、是的. They sure do. Shangdi help us all.
That doesnt sound like what he was arguing for at all...
@freemo @jenny_wu @LouisIngenthron @robryk She’s close to what I’m arguing against; I think that saying that #Trump being a jerk should be illegal not only would violate the constitution, it would also mean restricting the freedoms of others.
Not to put words in Jenny’s mouth, but it sounds like her point is she doesn’t care, she wants #Trump barred from office and buried under the jail no matter the cost to democracy.
Its ok as long as the law is "trump being a jerk should wind him up in jail"... the second it becoems "anyone who is a jerk should go to jail" .. which would have to include people who are jerks towards Trump and his supports... all of a sudden that proposal sounds a lot less appealing :)
@freemo @realcaseyrollins @LouisIngenthron @robryk
I was literally saying the opposite. It doesn’t matter is Trump is a banned candidate because the Republicans are not a banned party. And it doesn’t matter if Trump’s lawyers are fined for him being a jerk online; there’s billions of us, we’re all being jerks online and we get away with it and we always will. 你好吗！
@freemo @realcaseyrollins @LouisIngenthron @robryk
(The existence of the #GreatFirewall of China is an #orientalist myth btw) #OneLove 🥰
Huh? I've seen it at work more than once, so not sure what that means.
@freemo @realcaseyrollins @LouisIngenthron @robryk
Wow! You seem like a free speech type, so I assumed you’re familiar with the idea that China or North Korea aren’t allowed to see what’s on the Internet or share porn.
Usually they report on like one guy who got arrested for pissing off the Hebei police chief with spam comments. In a country with billions of people and thousands and linguistic homonyms.
Wow! You seem like a free speech type, so I assumed you’re familiar with the idea that China or North Korea aren’t allowed to see what’s on the Internet or share porn.
Yes I am aware that china has a firewall.. What you said was:
The existence of the #GreatFirewall of China is an #orientalist myth
Which seems to suggest the opposite, that it indeed does not exist. But since I’ve literally seen it doing what it claims to do I can confirm it is not a myth.
@freemo @realcaseyrollins @LouisIngenthron @robryk
The decentralized Web and meme crypto markets work internally in Asia exactly as they do in the West. You just don’t see much content from Asia because bandwidth is a bit more expensive. You can still get it if you want it
@jenny_wu @freemo @LouisIngenthron @robryk That’s literally not true. Are you lying on purpose?
@realcaseyrollins @freemo @LouisIngenthron @robryk
Just admit you couldn’t get weed in Shanghai if you wanted it LOL #loser
@jenny_wu @freemo @LouisIngenthron @robryk I’m starting to think that you saying I believe that the #GreatFirewall exists because I couldn’t get weed in #China (a place I’ve never been, by the way) might make for fair grounds to disengage from this conversation.
It’s hard to tell if you’re arguing in bad faith or are just plain stupid but it’s not worth my time to cross-examine you to find you.