50
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2023
50 points (96.3% liked)
politics
19283 readers
1831 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
To put it differently, the defense claims a gag order is only warranted after his speech causes harm to come to one of the people he attacks, even though it's already known that it's resulted in harassment and death threats. Apparently, the line in the sand for the defense is, "Somebody gets physically hurt or killed." Of course, by then, it's far too late.
These arguments are doomed in light of the exceptions to the First Amendment protections, not to mention the vast number of cases where gag orders were issued prophylactically.
Yeah, his free speech can be infringed upon if that speech is intended to incite imminent lawless action, which his speech has already been shown to do.
I mean, it's a crime to threaten to kill someone, so no one has to actually get hurt for speech to be infringed upon.
His free speech is particularly infringible because he's indicted and the speech at hand interacts directly with court procedure. If he weren't under indictment, no question the gag order would not be allowed. His lawyers are trying to pretend his indictment doesn't matter when it clearly does.
Underscores they are not just indifferent to stochastic violence, they see it as an outcome that would be a direct result of their speech and still don't stop.