More Trump not wanting freedom of speech - wants to us RICO

[Billiejeens]

DOJ says Trump protesters could face RICO charges for yelling at him while he was ‘trying to enjoy dinner’

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche defends Trump’s threat to charge protesters for using ‘vile words and vile anger’

uk.yahoo.com

"DOJ says Trump protesters could face RICO charges for yelling at him while he was ‘trying to enjoy dinner’"

"The No. 2 official at the Department of Justice was so aghast at the idea of anti-Trump demonstrators protesting the president while he was “trying to enjoy dinner” that they could face federal anti-racketeering charges that were designed to bust up organized crime."

"Asked Tuesday how, exactly, a protester could be charged under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche told CNN that the law is “available to all kinds of organizations committing crimes.”"

"“Is it sheer happenstance that individuals show up at a restaurant where the president is trying to enjoy dinner in Washington, D.C., and accost him with vile words and vile anger?” Blanche asked CNN host Kaitlan Collins."

"“And meanwhile, he’s simply trying to have dinner,” Blanche continued. “Does it mean it’s just completely random that they showed up? Maybe, maybe, but to the extent that it’s part of an organized effort to inflict harm and terror and damage to the United States, there’s potential, potential investigations there.”"

Apparently if you say bad things to Trump, it's inflicting "harm and terror and damage to the United States". Are you kidding me? If saying bad things were a crime, Trump would be a criminal (oh, wait, he is a criminal, but not for that).

This is a really stupid post.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Apparently if you say bad things to Trump, it's inflicting "harm and terror and damage to the United States".

That’s the fascist right and the fascist Trump regime – silence dissent with threats from the authoritarian state.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Clarify.

A right is, or should be, something that you can do, as long as it doesn't harm or hurt others.

Beyond that it should also not bring down the system (unless the system is corrupt)

So, for freedom of speech or the right to protest, if you harm another person physically, or you break other people's stuff, then you're not protected by free speech.

Also, when it comes speaking, you should not cause harm. However for speech most of the time it has to be something that harms a person in public, rather than in private.

A newspaper attacking Trump's son, for example, would not be protected, but attacking Trump for his politics, totally is.

 

[frigidweirdo]

That’s the fascist right and the fascist Trump regime – silence dissent with threats from the authoritarian state.

Yep, stopping them from speaking is "unconstitutional", them stopping the left from talking isn't, apparently

 

[westwall]

That’s the fascist right and the fascist Trump regime – silence dissent with threats from the authoritarian state.

Fascism is leftist, you ignorant toad.