The Bill of Rights is not a Suicide Pact.

[martybegan]

I've argued this many times, especially when someone brings up the "fire in a theater" example.

You can say what you wish until someone gets hurt. Trump's rhetoric have gotten people hurt and killed.

it is not nor has it ever been illegal to yell fire in a theater.

The original wording used in Holmes's opinion ("falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic") highlights that speech that is dangerous and false is not protected, as opposed to speech that is dangerous but also true.

Shouting fire in a crowded theater - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That standard doesn't apply, what applies here is law based on incitement, and what Trump said doesn't meet that standard. He didn't tell people to attack police, he didn't tell them to destroy property, he didn't tell them to break into Congress.

If someone yells "Fire in a crowded theater" and is ignored or people simply file out, no real harm done.

Now if they panic and crush people against locked doors in their attempt to get out, someone is going to be held accountable.

The person yelling "Fire" didn't yell. "Fire and crush people against the doors" but that person is most certainly responsible for what happened.

Again, the "fire" in a theater exception doesn't apply here, because there was no imminent threat implied which could result in a panic that could result in harm.

The incitement laws apply here, and those laws are very very specific about what constitutes incitement.

'Trump said I could': One possible legal defense for accused rioters

What a person thinks isn't evidence in something like incitement, Trumps words would have to have been specifically directing the people to break laws.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson has claimed that the "the constitutional Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact.”

It was a bullshit statement when it was first made, and it's still bullshit. An excuse for corrupt statist filth to claim powers on behalf of the government which the Constitution explicitly and intentionally denies it, and to violate human rights which the Constitution explicitly affirms and protects.

The very idea that recognizing and upholding basic human rights, and restraining government from violating these rights, constitutes “suicide” ought to never have drawn any other attention but the cruelest of mockery and rejection; and anyone who expresses this bullshit today is worthy of no better reaction than that.

 

[pknopp]

Trump's nominee's ruled against him also.

That's immaterial, stupid.

LOL, right, it only mattered Roberts did and that Bush was a fool for nominating him. Never mind that Trump's own nominee's didn't support him.

 

[pknopp]

I've argued this many times, especially when someone brings up the "fire in a theater" example.

You can say what you wish until someone gets hurt. Trump's rhetoric have gotten people hurt and killed.

it is not nor has it ever been illegal to yell fire in a theater.

The original wording used in Holmes's opinion ("falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic") highlights that speech that is dangerous and false is not protected, as opposed to speech that is dangerous but also true.

Shouting fire in a crowded theater - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That standard doesn't apply, what applies here is law based on incitement, and what Trump said doesn't meet that standard. He didn't tell people to attack police, he didn't tell them to destroy property, he didn't tell them to break into Congress.

If someone yells "Fire in a crowded theater" and is ignored or people simply file out, no real harm done.

Now if they panic and crush people against locked doors in their attempt to get out, someone is going to be held accountable.

The person yelling "Fire" didn't yell. "Fire and crush people against the doors" but that person is most certainly responsible for what happened.

Again, the "fire" in a theater exception doesn't apply here, because there was no imminent threat implied which could result in a panic that could result in harm.

The incitement laws apply here, and those laws are very very specific about what constitutes incitement.

'Trump said I could': One possible legal defense for accused rioters

What a person thinks isn't evidence in something like incitement, Trumps words would have to have been specifically directing the people to break laws.

I already pointed out where that is wrong.

 

[konradv]

your right to free speech cannot be violated by a private entity.

The government may not force a private entity to publish anything. THAT would be a 1st Amendment violation. Forcing Twitter to allow Trump to tweet would be such a violation.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

My point went over your head. LOL

You didn't have a point. You only had a bullshit excuse for trashing basic human rights.

 

[pknopp]

Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson has claimed that the "the constitutional Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact.”

Robert Jackson

Robert Jackson, a Supreme Court justice from 1941 to 1954, believed strongly in separation of church and state and free speech protections First Amendment.

www.mtsu.edu

'Thomas Jefferson offered one of the earliest formulations of the sentiment, although not of the phrase. In 1803, Jefferson's ambassadors to France arranged the purchase of the Louisiana territory in conflict with Jefferson's personal belief that the Constitution did not bestow upon the federal government the right to acquire or possess foreign territory. Due to political considerations, however, Jefferson disregarded his constitutional doubts, signed the proposed treaty, and sent it to the Senate for ratification. In justifying his actions, he later wrote:

A strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means"

The Constitution is not a suicide pact - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

***********************************************************************

This goes to of the heart of the debate we are having now regarding Parler, Twitter, and Facebook, among others, deleting calls for insurrection and violence, and cracking down on misinformation from posters.

Now, I am for a very expansive definition of the Bill of Rights, [in contrast to conservatives who have traditionally had a narrow definition of it].

But this where this Trumpist insurrection will have unintended consequences.

Because of recent Trumper conduct and actions, the American public at large will have less freedom. There will be a backlash against the violence that you losers have fomented. Thus more restrictions on free speech.

Free speech requires that the public at large exercise some kind of self-restraint and personal responsibility.

Trumpers have thrown that responsibility and restraint to the curb. They have none.

Thus companies have to exercise that restraint and responsibility.

All to our detriment.

We will all suffer because of their irresponsibility and criminal conduct.

So when cities get looted and buildings burned during BLM and Antifa riots, why are their freedoms not restricted?

Thousands have been arrested.

I know from personal friends who work for law enforcement, they were told to stand down during the riots.

And the police are held to a different standard. If someone is not obeying the law and shot unarmed, they lose their jobs

Not so in Washingon DC.

I'm no fan of the police. Welcome aboard.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The actions of the president and his fellow conspirators facilitated the air of distrust and anger that fomented over a two month period and after their failed attempt to disrupt a legal vote in the halls of Congress. This is a simple case of them trying to violate the civil rights of a nation because their guy lost.

What do you think the Democraps did, by staging a fake “pandemic” and using it as an excuse to sabotage our economy, and trash our most basic freedom; by encouraging aiding and support violent mobs of subhuman “Black Lies Matter” and “Antifa” filth as they committing acts of violence, destruction, and terrorism, and by openly cheating in the latest election cycle, and now, by backing a conspiracy to silence any dissenting opinions that don't align with theirs?

 

[debbiedowner]

I've argued this many times, especially when someone brings up the "fire in a theater" example.

You can say what you wish until someone gets hurt. Trump's rhetoric have gotten people hurt and killed.

it is not now nor has it ever been illegal to yell fire in a theater.

Not illegal but they sure as hell can ban you from ever coming in their theater again.

 

[martybegan]

I've argued this many times, especially when someone brings up the "fire in a theater" example.

You can say what you wish until someone gets hurt. Trump's rhetoric have gotten people hurt and killed.

it is not nor has it ever been illegal to yell fire in a theater.

The original wording used in Holmes's opinion ("falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic") highlights that speech that is dangerous and false is not protected, as opposed to speech that is dangerous but also true.

Shouting fire in a crowded theater - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That standard doesn't apply, what applies here is law based on incitement, and what Trump said doesn't meet that standard. He didn't tell people to attack police, he didn't tell them to destroy property, he didn't tell them to break into Congress.

If someone yells "Fire in a crowded theater" and is ignored or people simply file out, no real harm done.

Now if they panic and crush people against locked doors in their attempt to get out, someone is going to be held accountable.

The person yelling "Fire" didn't yell. "Fire and crush people against the doors" but that person is most certainly responsible for what happened.

Again, the "fire" in a theater exception doesn't apply here, because there was no imminent threat implied which could result in a panic that could result in harm.

The incitement laws apply here, and those laws are very very specific about what constitutes incitement.

'Trump said I could': One possible legal defense for accused rioters

What a person thinks isn't evidence in something like incitement, Trumps words would have to have been specifically directing the people to break laws.

I already pointed out where that is wrong.

No, you haven't you keep pointing to the "fire" in a theater example, which requires immediacy and a creation of a harmful event through known falsehood, i.e. there is no fire and the person yells fire specifically to create a harmful panic.

 

[debbiedowner]

The actions of the president and his fellow conspirators facilitated the air of distrust and anger that fomented over a two month period and after their failed attempt to disrupt a legal vote in the halls of Congress. This is a simple case of them trying to violate the civil rights of a nation because their guy lost.

What do you think the Democraps did, by staging a fake “pandemic” and using it as an excuse to sabotage our economy, and trash our most basic freedom; by encouraging aiding and support violent mobs of subhuman “Black Lies Matter” and “Antifa” filth as they committing acts of violence, destruction, and terrorism, and by openly cheating in the latest election cycle, and now, by backing a conspiracy to silence any dissenting opinions that don't align with theirs?

I see a Jim Jones follower yep leads to mass suicide. Still going with the plandemic from the dems, what a fool.

 

[pknopp]

I've argued this many times, especially when someone brings up the "fire in a theater" example.

You can say what you wish until someone gets hurt. Trump's rhetoric have gotten people hurt and killed.

it is not nor has it ever been illegal to yell fire in a theater.

The original wording used in Holmes's opinion ("falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic") highlights that speech that is dangerous and false is not protected, as opposed to speech that is dangerous but also true.

Shouting fire in a crowded theater - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That standard doesn't apply, what applies here is law based on incitement, and what Trump said doesn't meet that standard. He didn't tell people to attack police, he didn't tell them to destroy property, he didn't tell them to break into Congress.

If someone yells "Fire in a crowded theater" and is ignored or people simply file out, no real harm done.

Now if they panic and crush people against locked doors in their attempt to get out, someone is going to be held accountable.

The person yelling "Fire" didn't yell. "Fire and crush people against the doors" but that person is most certainly responsible for what happened.

Again, the "fire" in a theater exception doesn't apply here, because there was no imminent threat implied which could result in a panic that could result in harm.

The incitement laws apply here, and those laws are very very specific about what constitutes incitement.

'Trump said I could': One possible legal defense for accused rioters

What a person thinks isn't evidence in something like incitement, Trumps words would have to have been specifically directing the people to break laws.

I already pointed out where that is wrong.

No, you haven't you keep pointing to the "fire" in a theater example, which requires immediacy and a creation of a harmful event through known falsehood, i.e. there is no fire and the person yells fire specifically to create a harmful panic.

Trump told me to do it.

'Trump said I could': One possible legal defense for accused rioters

They will be throwing Trump under the bus to save their butts.

 

[Flash]

This is the Nazi type justification we are seeing from the filthy Democrats to take away our Constitutional rights.

We have seen it many times in history.

 

[martybegan]

I've argued this many times, especially when someone brings up the "fire in a theater" example.

You can say what you wish until someone gets hurt. Trump's rhetoric have gotten people hurt and killed.

it is not nor has it ever been illegal to yell fire in a theater.

The original wording used in Holmes's opinion ("falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic") highlights that speech that is dangerous and false is not protected, as opposed to speech that is dangerous but also true.

Shouting fire in a crowded theater - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That standard doesn't apply, what applies here is law based on incitement, and what Trump said doesn't meet that standard. He didn't tell people to attack police, he didn't tell them to destroy property, he didn't tell them to break into Congress.

If someone yells "Fire in a crowded theater" and is ignored or people simply file out, no real harm done.

Now if they panic and crush people against locked doors in their attempt to get out, someone is going to be held accountable.

The person yelling "Fire" didn't yell. "Fire and crush people against the doors" but that person is most certainly responsible for what happened.

Again, the "fire" in a theater exception doesn't apply here, because there was no imminent threat implied which could result in a panic that could result in harm.

The incitement laws apply here, and those laws are very very specific about what constitutes incitement.

'Trump said I could': One possible legal defense for accused rioters

What a person thinks isn't evidence in something like incitement, Trumps words would have to have been specifically directing the people to break laws.

I already pointed out where that is wrong.

No, you haven't you keep pointing to the "fire" in a theater example, which requires immediacy and a creation of a harmful event through known falsehood, i.e. there is no fire and the person yells fire specifically to create a harmful panic.

Trump told me to do it.

'Trump said I could': One possible legal defense for accused rioters

They will be throwing Trump under the bus to save their butts.

That's nothing more than an opinion you linked, and a shitty one at that.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

No, all this of a political persuasion that prefers to silence it's opponents rather then debate them.

…because they know that their position is bullshit, and has no chance of prevailing in an honest debate. They can only “win” by cheating, and they know it.

 

[Flash]

It doesn't do any good to have a Bill of Rights if the filthy Liberal politicians enact laws to do away with it and the Courts are too chickenshit to uphold the right.

Of course these are the same bastards that don't like free speech, right to keep and bear arms or freedom of religion.

Our Founding Fathers knew that government would fail us. That is why we have the right to keep and bear arms. It is up to us to use it.

 

[Moonglow]

The actions of the president and his fellow conspirators facilitated the air of distrust and anger that fomented over a two month period and after their failed attempt to disrupt a legal vote in the halls of Congress. This is a simple case of them trying to violate the civil rights of a nation because their guy lost.

What do you think the Democraps did, by staging a fake “pandemic” and using it as an excuse to sabotage our economy, and trash our most basic freedom; by encouraging aiding and support violent mobs of subhuman “Black Lies Matter” and “Antifa” filth as they committing acts of violence, destruction, and terrorism, and by openly cheating in the latest election cycle, and now, by backing a conspiracy to silence any dissenting opinions that don't align with theirs?

They sure fooled Trump didn't they? They fooled him into declaring a national health emergency and the release of the CDC and NIH plans to deal with a pandemic. Yeah they sure pulled the wool over Trump's eyes..
You know I get the pink slip from this place because I say or do things that those in charge say I can't do or say. Is my right's being violated here also? You parents told you what to do and restricted what you said and did in life, were they violating your rights?

 

[Moonglow]

It doesn't do any good to have a Bill of Rights if the filthy Liberal politicians enact laws to do away with it and the Courts are too chickenshit to uphold the right.

Of course these are the same bastards that don't like free speech, right to keep and bear arms or freedom of religion.

Our Founding Fathers knew that government would fail us. That is why we have the right to keep and bear arms. It is up to us to use it.

The freedoms are there it is a truth that there are limitations and always have been.

 

[Moonglow]

This is the Nazi type justification we are seeing from the filthy Democrats to take away our Constitutional rights.

We have seen it many times in history.

Stomp yer feeties a little harder and maybe you'll get farther.

 

[Flash]

The Roberts Court has already proven they are just as much chickenshits as the Legislative branch so we can't depend upon them to protect our individual Liberties any more than the Man in the Moon.

It is up to us to protect our Liberties because the fucking government Swamp sure as hell ain't gonna do it.