The Obama Double Standard On Violent Speech

[S.J.]

Attorney General Loretta Lynch threatens to prosecute people for "violent talk" about muslims but threatening to assassinate a presidential candidate is ok as long as it's Donald Trump.

Rapper Rick Ross makes song saying ‘ASSASSINATE Trump’; where’s Loretta Lynch when you need...

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Lynch can say whatever she wants, SCOTUS has set the bar very high for charges of "incitement" to stick.

You're making the mistake of confusing action with rhetoric.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Attorney General Loretta Lynch threatens to prosecute people for "violent talk" about muslims but threatening to assassinate a presidential candidate is ok as long as it's Donald Trump.

Rapper Rick Ross makes song saying ‘ASSASSINATE Trump’; where’s Loretta Lynch when you need...

This fails as a false comparison fallacy, and is ignorant of the law.

Lynch was referring to speech not subject to First Amendment protections, speech seeking to incite imminent lawlessness or violence (see Wisconsin v. Mitchell).

Hate speech not advocating for imminent lawlessness or violence is entitled to Constitutional protections (see R.A.V v. City of St. Paul).

 

[Clementine]

Lynch can say whatever she wants, SCOTUS has set the bar very high for charges of "incitement" to stick.

You're making the mistake of confusing action with rhetoric.

The rhetoric is coming from the Attorney General, so it's more than just talk. Considering how this administration is intent on doing what it wants despite the law, I won't be surprised if she goes after people for offending Muslims. We all know how easy it is to offend them. She didn't spell out what she meant exactly, but she made the threat because people are skeptical of bringing in the Syrian refugees due to the likelihood of ISIS or other terrorists being among them. Obama has made it clear that he doesn't consider that a valid concern. Lynch's warning seems to indicate that any talk of not wanting more Muslims or expressing concern over the high number of radical Muslims will bring on the wrath of the dictator.

 

[S.J.]

Lynch can say whatever she wants, SCOTUS has set the bar very high for charges of "incitement" to stick.

You're making the mistake of confusing action with rhetoric.

No I'm not.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Lynch can say whatever she wants, SCOTUS has set the bar very high for charges of "incitement" to stick.

You're making the mistake of confusing action with rhetoric.

The rhetoric is coming from the Attorney General, so it's more than just talk. Considering how this administration is intent on doing what it wants despite the law, I won't be surprised if she goes after people for offending Muslims. We all know how easy it is to offend them. She didn't spell out what she meant exactly, but she made the threat because people are skeptical of bringing in the Syrian refugees due to the likelihood of ISIS or other terrorists being among them. Obama has made it clear that he doesn't consider that a valid concern. Lynch's warning seems to indicate that any talk of not wanting more Muslims or expressing concern over the high number of radical Muslims will bring on the wrath of the dictator.

If she tries to prosecute vague threats that don't pass the Brandenburg test, she'll lose the case, and she knows it.

It's not more than just talk until something actually happens.

 

[Clementine]

This fails as a false comparison fallacy, and is ignorant of the law.

Lynch was referring to speech not subject to First Amendment protections, speech seeking to incite imminent lawlessness or violence (see Wisconsin v. Mitchell).

Hate speech not advocating for imminent lawlessness or violence is entitled to Constitutional protections (see R.A.V v. City of St. Paul).

Yet the left accuses people on the right of inciting the Planned Parenthood shooter with hate speech. Just when did someone call for violence? No one has called for any violence and they exercise their right to protest and request laws be changed. Agree or disagree, but they do it the right way.

Unlike some other groups.

The left doesn't consider the BLM rhetoric hate speech despite them outright calling for members to murder and getting results. The hatred pushed by the group is responsible for the murders of cops and white people. And as cops were murdered, they ramped up the vitriol.

Nice to know you can look up definitions. Maybe you should share it with some fellow libs who seem confused.

 

[S.J.]

Attorney General Loretta Lynch threatens to prosecute people for "violent talk" about muslims but threatening to assassinate a presidential candidate is ok as long as it's Donald Trump.

Rapper Rick Ross makes song saying ‘ASSASSINATE Trump’; where’s Loretta Lynch when you need...

This fails as a false comparison fallacy, and is ignorant of the law.

Lynch was referring to speech not subject to First Amendment protections, speech seeking to incite imminent lawlessness or violence (see Wisconsin v. Mitchell).

Hate speech not advocating for imminent lawlessness or violence is entitled to Constitutional protections (see R.A.V v. City of St. Paul).

Nice try, moron.

 

[Clementine]

If she tries to prosecute vague threats that don't pass the Brandenburg test, she'll lose the case, and she knows it.

It's not more than just talk until something actually happens.

She needs to resign right now. She has the responsibility of upholding the law and she is making threats for no reason. She failed to say anything when black groups were encouraging the murders of cops, but she steps in when people have valid concerns about Muslims.

We can't have officials using their power to threaten people. No one has done anything that warrants it, yet she seems concerned that something might happen. Meanwhile, murders caused by hate speech have been ignored. She is a politically correct loud mouth that is using her position to push her own little agenda.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Lynch can say whatever she wants, SCOTUS has set the bar very high for charges of "incitement" to stick.

You're making the mistake of confusing action with rhetoric.

No I'm not.

Yes, you are. You're comparing her rhetoric concerning inflammatory speech towards muslims to her perceived lack of action in regards to the comments towards Trump.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"The Obama Double Standard On Violent Speech"

Consequently the thread premise fails, as there is no 'double-standard,' only the same standard of First Amendment jurisprudence applied equally to everyone.

 

[S.J.]

If she tries to prosecute vague threats that don't pass the Brandenburg test, she'll lose the case, and she knows it.

It's not more than just talk until something actually happens.

She needs to resign right now. She has the responsibility of upholding the law and she is making threats for no reason. She failed to say anything when black groups were encouraging the murders of cops, but she steps in when people have valid concerns about Muslims.

We can't have officials using their power to threaten people. No one has done anything that warrants it, yet she seems concerned that something might happen. Meanwhile, murders caused by hate speech have been ignored. She is a politically correct loud mouth that is using her position to push her own little agenda.

That's why Obama picked her.

 

[S.J.]

Lynch can say whatever she wants, SCOTUS has set the bar very high for charges of "incitement" to stick.

You're making the mistake of confusing action with rhetoric.

No I'm not.

Yes, you are. You're comparing her rhetoric concerning inflammatory speech towards muslims to her perceived lack of action in regards to the comments towards Trump.

I'm saying she threatens to prosecute people for what she considers hate speech directed at muslims but says nothing when someone who shares her political views makes outright death threats against Trump. You don't like me pointing out the double standard so you have to invent something as a distraction.

 

[S.J.]

"The Obama Double Standard On Violent Speech"

Consequently the thread premise fails, as there is no 'double-standard,' only the same standard of First Amendment jurisprudence applied equally to everyone.

Bullshit. She's using her position to intimidate her political opponents but giving her political allies a free pass to make death threats.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Lynch can say whatever she wants, SCOTUS has set the bar very high for charges of "incitement" to stick.

You're making the mistake of confusing action with rhetoric.

No I'm not.

Yes, you are. You're comparing her rhetoric concerning inflammatory speech towards muslims to her perceived lack of action in regards to the comments towards Trump.

I'm saying she threatens to prosecute people for what she considers hate speech directed at muslims but says nothing when someone who shares her political views makes outright death threats against Trump. You don't like me pointing out the double standard so you have to invent something as a distraction.

She hasn't "threatened" anyone. She gave a "make-friendly" speech to a bunch of Muslims. Any "double standards" involved are politics, and therefore have absolutely no effect on my life, or yours.

I don't care if you point out an entirely meaningless double standard. That's pretty much the definition of politics.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

"The Obama Double Standard On Violent Speech"

Consequently the thread premise fails, as there is no 'double-standard,' only the same standard of First Amendment jurisprudence applied equally to everyone.

Bullshit. She's using her position to intimidate her political opponents but giving her political allies a free pass to make death threats.

Who do you think she's trying to intimidate, and how the fuck did you get that from her comments?

I'm genuinely interested in seeing your logic.

 

[S.J.]

Lynch can say whatever she wants, SCOTUS has set the bar very high for charges of "incitement" to stick.

You're making the mistake of confusing action with rhetoric.

No I'm not.

Yes, you are. You're comparing her rhetoric concerning inflammatory speech towards muslims to her perceived lack of action in regards to the comments towards Trump.

I'm saying she threatens to prosecute people for what she considers hate speech directed at muslims but says nothing when someone who shares her political views makes outright death threats against Trump. You don't like me pointing out the double standard so you have to invent something as a distraction.

She hasn't "threatened" anyone. She gave a "make-friendly" speech to a bunch of Muslims. Any "double standards" involved are politics, and therefore have absolutely no effect on my life, or yours.

I don't care if you point out an entirely meaningless double standard. That's pretty much the definition of politics.

She's the Attorney General, and she's in a position to put people in prison. They are implied threats designed to intimidate and you know it.

 

[S.J.]

"The Obama Double Standard On Violent Speech"

Consequently the thread premise fails, as there is no 'double-standard,' only the same standard of First Amendment jurisprudence applied equally to everyone.

Bullshit. She's using her position to intimidate her political opponents but giving her political allies a free pass to make death threats.

Who do you think she's trying to intimidate, and how the fuck did you get that from her comments?

I'm genuinely interested in seeing your logic.

Anyone who opposes the administration's agenda, sycophant.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Lynch can say whatever she wants, SCOTUS has set the bar very high for charges of "incitement" to stick.

You're making the mistake of confusing action with rhetoric.

No I'm not.

Yes, you are. You're comparing her rhetoric concerning inflammatory speech towards muslims to her perceived lack of action in regards to the comments towards Trump.

I'm saying she threatens to prosecute people for what she considers hate speech directed at muslims but says nothing when someone who shares her political views makes outright death threats against Trump. You don't like me pointing out the double standard so you have to invent something as a distraction.

She hasn't "threatened" anyone. She gave a "make-friendly" speech to a bunch of Muslims. Any "double standards" involved are politics, and therefore have absolutely no effect on my life, or yours.

I don't care if you point out an entirely meaningless double standard. That's pretty much the definition of politics.

She's the Attorney General, and she's in a position to put people in prison. They are implied threats designed to intimidate and you know it.

The only explanation for your belief that these were "implied threats" is that you haven't actually read or heard her remarks, and are going off headlines and mass emails.

Tell me, which part of her remarks did you find "threatening"?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

"The Obama Double Standard On Violent Speech"

Consequently the thread premise fails, as there is no 'double-standard,' only the same standard of First Amendment jurisprudence applied equally to everyone.

Bullshit. She's using her position to intimidate her political opponents but giving her political allies a free pass to make death threats.

Who do you think she's trying to intimidate, and how the fuck did you get that from her comments?

I'm genuinely interested in seeing your logic.

Anyone who opposes the administration's agenda, sycophant.

Perfect. So then tell me exactly what she said that you find so "threatening". You oppose their agenda, right?