Liberal Forum

jerrab » 03 Aug 2023, 4:27 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Aug 2023, 4:27 pm

and yet no rebuttal

**** You!!!

roadkill » 03 Aug 2023, 12:48 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Aug 2023, 12:48 pm

     

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50u33htEx6g

not covered under free speech
======--------------------

Lower courts have generally allowed liability or punishment for lies about others’ products or property;8 8. Unelko Corp. v. Rooney, 912 F.2d 1049, 1057-58 (9th Cir. 1990) (trade libel); SCO Grp., Inc. v. Novell, Inc., 692 F. Supp. 2d 1287, 1296 (D. Utah 2010) (slander of title). This is so even though these torts do not injure the individual dignitary interests that have long justified defamation law. See Milkovich v. Lorain J. Co., 497 U.S. 1, 22 (1990) (quoting with approval Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U.S. 75, 92-93 (1966) (Stewart, J., concurring)).unsworn lies to government officials;9 9. E.g., Clipper Exxpress v. Rocky Mountain Motor Tariff Bureau, Inc., 690 F.2d 1240 (9th Cir. 1982) (18 U.S.C. § 1001 generally); United States v. Konstantakakos, 121 Fed. Appx. 902, 905 (2d Cir. 2005) (statements on an immigration application); People v. Hanifin, 77 A.D.3d 1181 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010) (911 calls); State v. Bailey, 644 N.E.2d 314 (Ohio 1994) (statements to police officer); Howell v. State, 921 N.E.2d 503 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (statements to police officer). This likely includes knowingly false crime reports made to the public in general, if they seem certain to come to the attention of law enforcement officials. Haley v. State, 712 S.E.2d 838 (Ga. 2011) (rejecting First Amendment challenge to defendant’s conviction when defendant released YouTube videos claiming to be a serial killer and was then prosecuted for making a false statement on a matter within the jurisdiction of a state agency).lies likely to provoke public panic;10 10. Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 52 (1919) (“falsely shouting fire in a theatre”); 47 C.F.R. § 73.1217 (false radio or television statements that foreseeably cause “direct and actual damage to property or to the health or safety of the general public, or diversion of law enforcement or other public health and safety authorities from their duties”); 18 U.S.C. § 1038(a)(1) (false statements claiming an attack involving weapons of mass destruction “has taken, is taking, or will take place”), upheld by United States v. Brahm, 520 F. Supp. 2d 619, 626-27 (D.N.J. 2007) 
 
 
 

jerrab » 03 Aug 2023, 4:58 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Aug 2023, 4:58 pm

roadkill was right...I'm a piss ant.

Yep
 

jerrab » 03 Aug 2023, 3:36 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Aug 2023, 3:36 pm

--------

Despite being told by the attorney general, his own campaign lawyers and many other senior advisers that his claims of election fraud were wrong, Donald Trump pressed ahead with the “big lie” that the election was stolen and undertook a fundraising enterprise based off of those claims that steered most of that money to Trump’s Save America PAC rather than to election-related litigation.

----------------------------------------

making money off a lie is not protected by free speech

You have no evidence that Trump was wrong .....
The DC establishment refused to investigate .....

 

Majik » 03 Aug 2023, 5:13 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Aug 2023, 5:13 pm

You have no evidence that Trump was wrong .....
The DC establishment refused to investigate .....

there were investigations and sydney powell  admitted she  lied.
 

jerrab » 03 Aug 2023, 5:23 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Aug 2023, 5:23 pm

there were investigations and sydney powell  admitted she  lied.

Show me one federal investigation..... ...by the federal government....
The whole reason all those protesters were there on Jan.6th was because the federal government refused to investigate.....
and it was also the reason why many of the red state governor's, members of the house and senate wanted Pence to not certify the election until an investigation occured ......



 

Majik » 03 Aug 2023, 5:56 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Aug 2023, 5:56 pm

Show me one federal investigation..... ...by the federal government....
The whole reason all those protesters were there on Jan.6th was because the federal government refused to investigate.....
and it was also the reason why many of the red state governor's, members of the house and senate wanted Pence to not certify the election until an investigation occured ......

before 1 6 trump was president
 

Majik » 03 Aug 2023, 5:56 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Aug 2023, 5:56 pm

Show me one federal investigation..... ...by the federal government....
The whole reason all those protesters were there on Jan.6th was because the federal government refused to investigate.....
and it was also the reason why many of the red state governor's, members of the house and senate wanted Pence to not certify the election until an investigation occured ......

Wait.

That’s the Fox News fairy tale.

Trump is not being charged with incitement.

He’s being charged with actions he took before Jan 6.

He conspired with six others to peacefully overturn an election.
 

Majik » 03 Aug 2023, 5:56 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Aug 2023, 5:56 pm

Show me one federal investigation..... ...by the federal government....
The whole reason all those protesters were there on Jan.6th was because the federal government refused to investigate.....
and it was also the reason why many of the red state governor's, members of the house and senate wanted Pence to not certify the election until an investigation occured ......

why should they? powell admitted she lied.
 

michaelf » 03 Aug 2023, 3:06 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Aug 2023, 3:06 pm

I don't know...Adam Shifty
 spent a couple years stirring up people by yelling "Russia Russia Russia!"

well, let me rephrase!  Republicans can't yell to create panic!

jack » 03 Aug 2023, 4:37 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Aug 2023, 4:37 pm

He's indicted for what he accomplished by speaking not for the speaking itself. If you tell people loyal to you to rob a bank and they go out and rob the bank you will be arrested, and good luck with that First Amendment defense.

what did he accomplish jack? he told them to go home in peace...how did that work out?

ROG62 » 03 Aug 2023, 6:48 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Aug 2023, 6:48 pm

what did he accomplish jack? he told them to go home in peace...how did that work out?

Rog he’s not charged with incitement 


They threw Trump a curve.

jerrab » 03 Aug 2023, 4:58 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Aug 2023, 4:58 pm

not covered under free speech
 

Turley: Despite "Urban Legends" From Democrats, Trump Is Not Charged With Incitement, Insurrection, Seditious Conspiracy...
JONATHAN TURLEY: No. It's really approaching the urban legend status. Because he's not charged with incitement. He's not charged with insurrection. He's not charged with seditious conspiracy. He's not charged with all of those things the Democrats impeached him on the second time. 

So they're really bigfooting the Constitution here. It's not there. 

But the question is what is here? I have to tell you, this is thin soup in my view. They have a colossal Constitutional problem that they will have to overcome from the outset. They have to establish all of these lynchpins, that he not only believed the truth of the matter, that he understood he was lying, but then he played a criminal role in getting these other individuals to take the steps mentioned in the indictment. That is a very difficult case to prove. 

I think part of the dynamic that we're seeing is that you can't just pursue a president from pillar to post across the country without people beginning to tune out.

This day would be called a life-changing experience for most people. For Donald Trump, it's called Thursday. 

He is -- this is his third indictment. He's going to likely get a fourth indictment. And the real jury is likely the one that will be voting in 2024. I think we're already seeing how this is impacting them. I have to tell you, in this case, I should think that Trump would welcome aspects of this case. Precisely because of that issue, and also because he has these threshold legal questions that he should be able to get to the appellate courts fairly quickly. 

So, Smith has to be careful what he's asking for. The Trump team might give it to him. It's unlikely he will get a trial put in front of the Florida trial, but they could help him out in moving these issues to the appellate court and asking them, is this the criminalization of disinformation? Are you about to criminalize false political speech? 

Because in the past, the Supreme Court has been extremely skeptical of laws that attempt to do that. 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video ... ition.html
 

Bruce » 03 Aug 2023, 6:50 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Aug 2023, 6:50 pm

Rog he’s not charged with incitement 

They threw Trump a curve.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video ... ition.html

no curve...a sinker...down and out...

We need high profile targeted character assassinations against Journalists, prosecutors, judges, political activists, mega donors to shake **** up.
 

ROG62 » 03 Aug 2023, 6:58 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Aug 2023, 6:58 pm

Turley: Despite "Urban Legends" From Democrats, Trump Is Not Charged With Incitement, Insurrection, Seditious Conspiracy...
JONATHAN TURLEY: No. It's really approaching the urban legend status. Because he's not charged with incitement. He's not charged with insurrection. He's not charged with seditious conspiracy. He's not charged with all of those things the Democrats impeached him on the second time. 

So they're really bigfooting the Constitution here. It's not there. 

But the question is what is here? I have to tell you, this is thin soup in my view. They have a colossal Constitutional problem that they will have to overcome from the outset. They have to establish all of these lynchpins, that he not only believed the truth of the matter, that he understood he was lying, but then he played a criminal role in getting these other individuals to take the steps mentioned in the indictment. That is a very difficult case to prove. 

I think part of the dynamic that we're seeing is that you can't just pursue a president from pillar to post across the country without people beginning to tune out.

This day would be called a life-changing experience for most people. For Donald Trump, it's called Thursday. 

He is -- this is his third indictment. He's going to likely get a fourth indictment. And the real jury is likely the one that will be voting in 2024. I think we're already seeing how this is impacting them. I have to tell you, in this case, I should think that Trump would welcome aspects of this case. Precisely because of that issue, and also because he has these threshold legal questions that he should be able to get to the appellate courts fairly quickly. 

So, Smith has to be careful what he's asking for. The Trump team might give it to him. It's unlikely he will get a trial put in front of the Florida trial, but they could help him out in moving these issues to the appellate court and asking them, is this the criminalization of disinformation? Are you about to criminalize false political speech? 

Because in the past, the Supreme Court has been extremely skeptical of laws that attempt to do that. 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video ... ition.html

the co conspirators will have to make a choice, spill the beans or end up in jail like  the one from the trump corporation.
 

ROG62 » 03 Aug 2023, 6:48 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Aug 2023, 6:48 pm

what did he accomplish jack? he told them to go home in peace...how did that work out?

He didn't tell them to home, not that it matters since he isn't charged with inciting the riot. The four part indictment consists of three conspiracy crimes and one of obstruction.

jerrab » 03 Aug 2023, 7:35 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Aug 2023, 7:35 pm

the co conspirators will have to make a choice, spill the beans or end up in jail like  the one from the trump corporation.

like a house of cards...
 

ROG62 » 03 Aug 2023, 6:58 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Aug 2023, 6:58 pm

Turley: Despite "Urban Legends" From Democrats, Trump Is Not Charged With Incitement, Insurrection, Seditious Conspiracy...
JONATHAN TURLEY: No. It's really approaching the urban legend status. Because he's not charged with incitement. He's not charged with insurrection. He's not charged with seditious conspiracy. He's not charged with all of those things the Democrats impeached him on the second time. 

So they're really bigfooting the Constitution here. It's not there. 

But the question is what is here? I have to tell you, this is thin soup in my view. They have a colossal Constitutional problem that they will have to overcome from the outset. They have to establish all of these lynchpins, that he not only believed the truth of the matter, that he understood he was lying, but then he played a criminal role in getting these other individuals to take the steps mentioned in the indictment. That is a very difficult case to prove. 

I think part of the dynamic that we're seeing is that you can't just pursue a president from pillar to post across the country without people beginning to tune out.

This day would be called a life-changing experience for most people. For Donald Trump, it's called Thursday. 

He is -- this is his third indictment. He's going to likely get a fourth indictment. And the real jury is likely the one that will be voting in 2024. I think we're already seeing how this is impacting them. I have to tell you, in this case, I should think that Trump would welcome aspects of this case. Precisely because of that issue, and also because he has these threshold legal questions that he should be able to get to the appellate courts fairly quickly. 

So, Smith has to be careful what he's asking for. The Trump team might give it to him. It's unlikely he will get a trial put in front of the Florida trial, but they could help him out in moving these issues to the appellate court and asking them, is this the criminalization of disinformation? Are you about to criminalize false political speech? 

Because in the past, the Supreme Court has been extremely skeptical of laws that attempt to do that. 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video ... ition.html

Excellent post!   

Bruce » 03 Aug 2023, 6:07 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Aug 2023, 6:07 pm

Wait.

That’s the Fox News fairy tale.

Trump is not being charged with incitement.

He’s being charged with actions he took before Jan 6.

He conspired with six others to peacefully overturn an election.

You're **** insane.