Julius Streicher and what to do about free speech?

[Archon_Wing]

No need to dog whistle. It's obvious that you're an Arnie fan.

What, of course not.

I'll be back.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

In other words, because you lack the capacity to engage what is said, you have to dismiss and insult what is said.

If you have something other than trash, you can simply address arguments already presented in the thread. If you can't do that, I won't respect anything you post in response to me.

If you want something more than dismissals and insults, first try it yourself.

Equating Snowden and Assange in the way you are doing is doing Snowden a disservice. Last I checked, Snowden didn't hole himself up in an embassy for seven years to avoid being taken to court on a case of alleged rape.

Allegations are not convictions, GTFO with that. He has good reason to believe he won't get a fair shake, for exactly the same reasons Snowden believes such.

Trump's pardons were, for the most part, personally or ideologically-motivated. Not pardoning Snowden (or Assange) isn't about cowardice

There are few people Trump could have pardoned that would have pissed off his enemies (including some of the corrupt deep state) more than pardoning Assange and Snowden. It's not lost on me that it was under Trump's watch that US moved to extradite Assange. He had a chance to walk that back, stick it to his enemies for personal gain, and undo a major injustice. He didn't take it, despite knowing all that. I suspect he must have feared negative perceptions/blowback or actual threats, and thus call avoiding doing it cowardice. Or maybe he fears Assange would have something on him too...which is still cowardice.

Assange was made an example of, and some of the 2019 indictments are among the most blatant public violations of US first amendment protections ever. Obama and especially Trump hold no respect for how they handled his disclosure of information.

Ironically, pardoning the Capitol ravishers also apparently wasn't self-serving enough

The capitol riots harmed him. Some pathetic congressmen actually changed their votes based on that (they need to be voted out as soon as their term ends, since obviously they aren't consistent with principles). He got no benefits from it, and is also getting false accusations of incitement and a blatantly unconstitutional impeachment of someone who is now not even president based on actions that are not even crimes. Yet somehow he, who is very unlikely to see himself in a seat of power ever again, is more of a threat than those cretins operating directly against their sworn duty?

Yet his pardons are baffling, even if we assume self-interest. Then again, so were his appointments while in office...most of which were neither loyal to him nor to the country.

At least he didn't start new wars. I hope Biden continues that trend, rather than copying his other predecessors dating back most of our lifetimes.

 

[Gorbles]

Allegations are not convictions, GTFO with that. He has good reason to believe he won't get a fair shake, for exactly the same reasons Snowden believes such.

I never said an allegation was a conviction. "GTFO with that" indeed. Beyond that, I'm not interested in your defense of Assange. I simply spoke from what factually happened, and didn't mention my opinions on it at all.

I'm saying it's uncharitable to Snowden to mention them in the same context. Their situations are legally different, and Snowden doesn't deserved to be tarnished with the same brush.

If it makes you happy, I consider their situations ethically different too. But that isn't what I argued, or even raised.

 

[Cutlass]

Just so we can dispense with the moronism that a Republican considers impeachment to be about anything other than a political tool.

Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene made good on her promise Thursday when she announced the filing of articles of impeachment against President Joe Biden.

I just filed Articles of Impeachment on President @JoeBiden. pic.twitter.com/mcwEEkKiHL

— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (@RepMTG) January 21, 2021
Greene, who has made waves in her first few days in office, is most known for supporting the debunked and false QAnon conspiracy. Twitter temporarily suspended her account after she tweeted out conspiracy theories about problems with the Georgia elections, which ironically, put her into Congress.

The articles of impeachment likely won't move forward in the 117th Congress. Democrats control both chambers of Congress and won't consider impeaching President Biden.


Greene took to Twitter Thursday saying the "inauguration looked like a one party military state takeover with 30k troops." The troops were brought in to secure the Capitol and surrounding areas after the insurrection from supporters of former President Donald Trump on January 6. She also called Biden a "clueless Grandpa" in a Tweet on Wednesday.

She also drew widespread scorn Wednesday when Facebook messages from 2018 showed Greene "agreeing with comments spreading the conspiracy that the Parkland school shooting where 17 students and faculty members at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High were killed was a 'false flag operation,'" the Miami Herald reported.

https://www.cbs46.com/news/congress...cle_b6fb3544-5c2b-11eb-abd0-a7ac268026b8.html

 

[El_Machinae]

Not whataboutism on my part, but the first question for me was the precedent.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...icles-of-impeachment-against-president-trump/

 

[GenMarshall]

At least he didn't start new wars. I hope Biden continues that trend, rather than copying his other predecessors dating back most of our lifetimes.

I’m already counting down the day Biden starts drone striking people.

 

[Gorbles]

I’m already counting down the day Biden starts drone striking people.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Qasem_Soleimani

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I’m already counting down the day Biden starts drone striking people.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47480207

 

[Cutlass]

Not whataboutism on my part, but the first question for me was the precedent.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...icles-of-impeachment-against-president-trump/

Which goes back to at least Clinton. But the difference is that Democrats at least look at wrongdoing. It may not be impeachable. It may not be significant enough to bring that up. But it is wrongdoing.

Republicans just use it as a political tool to hobble the opposition.

 

[Archon_Wing]

What did Andrew Johnson do wrong anyways?

I gather he sucked, but what else?

 

[cardgame]

What did Andrew Johnson do wrong anyways?

I gather he sucked, but what else?

I don't know who that is, but Jackson did a whole bunch of genocide. On purpose, with fully malicious intent. He also broke the Supreme Court, and a whole bunch of other stuff I can't recall.

 

[Samson]

I’m already counting down the day Biden starts drone striking people.

AFG4236Ci link
24 MARCH 2020
25 reported killed
33 reported injured

 

[Archon_Wing]

I don't know who that is, but Jackson did a whole bunch of genocide. On purpose, with fully malicious intent. He also broke the Supreme Court, and a whole bunch of other stuff I can't recall.

Andrew Johnson is the first president to be impeached, ever.

Jackson is another scumbag that got remembered more favorably than he really was.

 

[Cutlass]

What did Andrew Johnson do wrong anyways?

I gather he sucked, but what else?

After Lincoln was killed, Johnson pretty much singlehandedly prevented reconstruction from getting a start which might have led to it working.

 

[Berzerker]

And the legal basis for this is...?

I know you can point to the law that enshrines this concept.. C'mon!

Or is there no such thing?

I'm not sure what you're asking, the definition of 'freedom of speech' is not limited to a legal basis. Many countries will hurt or kill people for speaking, they have no legal basis. But we still accuse those countries of violating free speech. In our system the 1st Amendment is the legal basis.

Oh yeah, this thread is about free speech. I'll stop talking about whatshisface

Because that would be off topic. And a moderator would be in his or her right to remove that post. But that removal in itself would not be a matter of free speech, so even that action would be off topic.

Ofc its a matter of free speech and I seriously doubt anyone would object to another rant about whatshisface. The media will miss him too.

No pardon for Snowden/Assange, major black mark on Trump..

Yup...and John Kiriakou (he exposed waterboarding). All victims of the deep state. Tucker Carlson said there was suspicion McConnell told Trump impeachment would have legs if he pardoned these whistle blowers. Shameful either way.

 

[warpus]

I'm not sure what you're asking, the definition of 'freedom of speech' is not limited to a legal basis.

In the context of people committing alleged crimes against you, I don't see how you could use anything but the legal basis.

 

[Berzerker]

In the context of people committing alleged crimes against you, I don't see how you could use anything but the legal basis.

I thought we were debating if censorship violated free speech, not if it was a crime. If the mob wanted to silence people with threats and intimidation those might be the crimes but they violate free speech nonetheless. In this case, congressional Democrats and the party pushed for censorship, gotta keep them evil Russians from interfering in our election.

When these media CEOs testified they were blamed for the interference. How dare you Mark Zuckerberg let Russians use your platform to spread lies! The Dems have been howling for censorship and they got it, so this notion it cant be censorship ignores reality. And its a violation of the 1st Amendment just like when Trump told NFL owners to punish players taking a knee.

Congress cant threaten people to do for them what is prohibited by the Constitution. Congress shall make no law prohibiting the freedom of speech = Congress shall make no law requiring others to prohibit free speech. That violates the freedom of speech of both the censors and the censored.

 

[warpus]

If censorship violates free speech, and that isn't a crime, then who cares? Suck it up and move on, those violating your whatever didn't do anything wrong.

By the way, if we are debating "if censorship violated free speech" then that's usually done in the context of the 1st amendment. No?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

All victims of the deep state.

Victim of the deep end.

Tucker Carlson said ...

Tucker Carlson said!

 

[Angst]

Censorship is innate to freedom of speech unless you want to abolish the right to control your own property.