Trump would not explicitly tell his followers to attack the Capital, tear the place apart, and threaten congress but that is certainly how his people interpreted his message, “walk down to the Capitol,” adding, “You'll will never take back our country with weakness.” And after the attack, Trump didn't explicitly thank the insurgents for their attack but rather called them "very special people". In one his rallies he was addressing undocumented immigrants and he said with a contemptuous smile on his face, "We're going to be very gentle with them, protecting their rights. We're going to be non-violent but we going show them how patriots handle rapists and murders" Pollical scientist called this coded messaging. Often national leaders can not explicitly promote the violence they seek but they get their point across by alluding to it with carefully chosen phrases to engage and encourage their audience which is exactly what Trump does.First amendment rights restrict the congress from denying citizens their right to express themselves. Twitter may be muzzling Trump but I don't think congress is. When Trump incites an insurrection, that does fall under his right to free speech just as a man screaming fire in crowed auditorium.
Apples and oranges. First off, nobody can point to me anywhere in Trump's speech where he incited a riot. Not one mention of him instructing his followers to use violence, break laws, or bust down the doors of Congress in previous speeches or in his Tweets. In the speech during the riots, Trump told his people to protest peacefully and legally.
When somebody yells fire in a movie theater, their entire intent is to cause panic. That's not what Trump did. As I pointed out to Mustang, what Trump said is no more caustic than what Waters, Schumer, or Sander's said, and again, might have led to the baseball shooting since the shooter was a follower, and in documents the FBI found, he wrote letters to various Democrat politicians demanding Trump be removed from office and held on trial for treason. Now gee, where would he get an idea like that?
True, free speech can be limited to what one says, but if we limit it to how others construe the words, then we no longer have free speech because people can misinterpret what one is saying.
Last edited: