Julius Streicher and what to do about free speech?

[Ziggy Stardust]

Well this is the problem with truth. Now if you don't trust the US courts, the Trump Justice department, the state legislatures/govs (some all Rep controlled) then I cant convince you. Once these institutions have ruled on the issues to continue to claim Trump won or might have won is a seditious lie. Seditious because it rejects all the structures and rules of government that we have had for 250 yrs. You act like an “audit”, whatever that is, would convince you but who would do it as you trust none of the current structures of your government or society so you would find some reason that it was faked or undermined. The fact that this conspiracy and any other can be spread so widely by anyone on the internet it the problem in question.

Here's how it goes:

The networks don't decide elections, the court does.
When the courts don't deliver the desired results, the courts don't decide the election, the Supreme Court does.
The SC doesn't deliver. So now the SC doesn't decide the election, the Electoral College does.
The EC doesn't deliver. So now they're all in on it.

And people believe an audit is going to sway opinions? Please. When even before the election has started only one result is accepted, these people have not aligned themselves with truth. Truth is the last thing on their mind.

The truth is: "Trump should be president because I want Trump to be president." However fancy they dress it up. They wave American flags for show. They have MAGA as slogan while eroding it's foundations.

If you said 4 years ago: "Trump is not my president", their response: "Suck it up crybabies". But now it's "Stop the Steal!"
They say it's payback for the Mueller investigation? They forget one very important fact. The Mueller investigation dug up quite a bit of dirt. Their investigation has delivered nothing. Not a single thing. And remember they claimed to have the Kraken. They. Got. Nothing. And they knew they got nothing, they said so in court themselves. Because riling up a fanatical base is all fun and games, but perjury, no thanks.

And now the sleazeballs have pointed an impressionable crowd towards insurrection with deadly consequences, they start talking about healing and reconciliation.

And the worst part of all this? They will get away with it. And someone else will see the business model and go "... hmmmm, I can do that way better". Which is quite a low bar after all, and look how far the incompetent Doofus Yoghurts got.

 

[Mark1031]

I think I we can live w/o social media and basically I think we are not psychologically/socially/legally able to handle it. I could see doing away with sec. 230 which by my understanding would really undermine most social network business models by greatly increasing liability risk. But if unmoderated internet forums lead to the collapse of civilization then it is a small price to pay. Some people just can't let us have nice things.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I think I we can live w/o social media

Lol "social media". Make yourself aware what those words even mean.
This statement is scary as fudge, truth be told.

Lockdown forever, heh?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Here's how it goes:

The networks don't decide elections, the court does.
When the courts don't deliver the desired results, the courts don't decide the election, the Supreme Court does.
The SC doesn't deliver. So now the SC doesn't decide the election, the Electoral College does.
The EC doesn't deliver. So now they're all in on it.

And people believe an audit is going to sway opinions? Please. When even before the election has started only one result is accepted, these people have not aligned themselves with truth. Truth is the last thing on their mind.

The truth is: "Trump should be president because I want Trump to be president." However fancy they dress it up. They wave American flags for show. They have MAGA as slogan while eroding it's foundations.

If you said 4 years ago: "Trump is not my president", their response: "Suck it up crybabies". But now it's "Stop the Steal!"
They say it's payback for the Mueller investigation? They forget one very important fact. The Mueller investigation dug up quite a bit of dirt. Their investigation has delivered nothing. Not a single thing. And remember they claimed to have the Kraken. They. Got. Nothing. And they knew they got nothing, they said so in court themselves. Because riling up a fanatical base is all fun and games, but perjury, no thanks.

And now the sleazeballs have pointed an impressionable crowd towards insurrection with deadly consequences, they start talking about healing and reconciliation.

And the worst part of all this? They will get away with it. And someone else will see the business model and go "... hmmmm, I can do that way better". Which is quite a low bar after all, and look how far the incompetent Doofus Yoghurts got.

The courts not only didn't decide the election, they cowered from addressing it. Including supreme court, which ignored Bush v Gore precedent and ducked behind "standing". "Standing" is joke doctrine in US legal history dating back a century. Courts have no demonstrable consistency in its usage, and it's more or less used to avoid hearing cases they don't want to hear. Note, however, that Trump's appointees joined in this nonsense, similar to how his other appointees backstabbed him so frequently.

What this analysis leaves out is that the vast majority of court cases were dismissed on procedural grounds, either the joke combo of "no damages --> laches" (implication being filings were either too early or late as convenient) or "standing". In most of the contested states, the one obvious measure (signature verification) was refused audit, despite in some cases their election officials promising to do so and then not doing so. The statistical evidence/merits of cases straight up were not heard in court, and that is why so many people smell something. That and states violating their own laws to change processes without the involvement of their legislatures.

Statistical anomalies more than justify the audit of signature matches. It wasn't that long ago that one of the Carolinas had a re-election outright on weaker evidence.

The irony of calling out disingenuous "healing/reconciliation" is noted though. As if the trash making similar comments didn't immediately turn around and start attacking dissenting viewpoints yet again.

If Trumped picked better people he'd probably still be in office next month, rather than crap like Barr sitting on important evidence throughout December etc. Same for dealing with blatant section 230 abuse and information control by social media. He stood by while that happened. Nobody important enough to change laws even flinched when Alex Jones got same-day tandem taken down at various levels. To my knowledge, he has yet to pardon Assange or Snowden. While it's very questionable whether he legitimately lost the election, his choices/failures led to Biden taking office all the same. I hope for another candidate opposed to deep state again, next time without the bad PR and meme levels of self and country-destructive appointees.

Lockdown forever, heh?

Also scary how governments, including those beyond the US, have been able to lie to their people about the duration of said lockdown. They then arbitrarily decide what is/isn't essential while elected officials still travel as desired. Cut people out of working for their livelihoods, as if that's something that wasn't by design supposed to be a personal freedom. Against evidence that extended lockdown very likely does more harm than good. In fact talking about the possibility that lockdown does more harm than good is grounds to get you banned by "arbiters of truth". Will they take legal responsibility if it turns out actuarial data demonstrates that the lockdowns are worse for public health? Will they liquidate over spreading the misinformation they claim to police? I doubt it. Yet we still debate whether increased censorship of "misinformation" is worthy somehow.

 

[cardgame]

While it's very questionable whether he legitimately lost the election

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The courts not only didn't decide the election, they cowered from addressing it.

This bollocks again.

You mean Trump's top lawyers didn't realise their cases would be thrown out? They were gobsmacked. "Those mean courts won't hear our cases". And these incompetent laywers get paid that much?

Of course they realised. They didn't want the courts to hear those cases. They wanted the line that you are spewing right now. And remind yourself, at the start, those cases did get into court. And they resulted in some choice words from judged. I can imagine Trump's lawyer team decided not to make the mistake of presenting cases that actually got into court. No. It destroys their claim they have the Kraken and mountains of evidence (and by the way, if you have evidence, please please please tell us, because we've been shouting we have, but .... funny story ...")

Including supreme court, which ignored Bush v Gore precedent and ducked behind "standing". "Standing" is joke doctrine in US legal history dating back a century. Courts have no demonstrable consistency in its usage, and it's more or less used to avoid hearing cases they don't want to hear. Note, however, that Trump's appointees joined in this nonsense, similar to how his other appointees backstabbed him so frequently.

Well how very strange everyone and their pet dog reported it would go down because of "standing". Everyone knew. Trump's lawyers knew. It was supposed to go that way. Only because you can say now: "ducked behind 'standing'"

What this analysis leaves out is that the vast majority of court cases were dismissed on procedural grounds

Yeah. It leaves that out. Because they were made to be dismissed on procedural grounds.

Vast majority eh? So what about the minority of cases, mostly at the start, that were heard? A minority of 60 is still quite a few cases. Let me guess: "The judges were too coward blah blah blah".

edit: But if they had held an audit that would show no fraud, well now, then everyone would have said: "Oh ... blast, is my face red! Well, ok, fair's fair. Biden is president."

 

[Gorbles]

The courts not only didn't decide the election, they cowered from addressing it

Didn't take you as being as far-right as this. Not intended as a personal attack, just commentary. Useful context though.

 

[Mark1031]

Legal Eagle reviews incitement and impeachment.

I know this was from another thread but it has a very relevant legal definition of prohibited incitement speech (in the US). It is an extremely high bar that any half-way decent troll could avoid while at the same time starting a civil war. Not going to read Streicher’s writing but in many cases I’m sure it doesn’t meet the standard. Ex the most vile racist lies are not incitement and protected. But if it does incite a few careful edits could make it legal and still incite Kristalnacht. This is the problem with US free speech law.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

@TheMeInTeam
I don't agree with everything you say. But you are certainly right in some ways. And that is the thing the other side needs to get. But won't.

Though it will
Eventually
Because it has to

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Didn't take you as being as far-right as this. Not intended as a personal attack, just commentary. Useful context though.

If they addressed the merits I'd have posted differently. Avoiding merits and dismissing on procedural grounds, especially a doctrine with a historically bad record (standing) doesn't lend them any credence.

On the other hand, everyone gets called far-right these days so might as well call me that too I guess.

Vast majority eh? So what about the minority of cases, mostly at the start, that were heard?

Qanon conspiracy junk that went after nonsense like machines being hacked etc.

Interesting that this stuff getting axed is somehow equated to there being no need for auditing signatures, despite that signature matching would catch the most common way historical election fraud has been perpetrated in the US and is the only plausible way it could have happened this time. Almost like the courts picked their battles.

Standing was invalid when it was used before/after WW2 times and it's still invalid now. But the courts can get away with using it regardless so they do.

 

[Berzerker]

Well this is the problem with truth. Now if you don't trust the US courts, the Trump Justice department, the state legislatures/govs (some all Rep controlled) then I cant convince you. Once these institutions have ruled on the issues to continue to claim Trump won or might have won is a seditious lie. Seditious because it rejects all the structures and rules of government that we have had for 250 yrs. You act like an “audit”, whatever that is, would convince you but who would do it as you trust none of the current structures of your government or society so you would find some reason that it was faked or undermined. The fact that this conspiracy and any other can be spread so widely by anyone on the internet it the problem in question.

Kinda hard to audit (and thoroughly investigate) the election in such a short amount of time, whatever process was decided on for an audit would have to proceed with Biden as President (and I assume that means statistical analyses and looking at ballot signatures - I had to sign my name to vote in person and show ID). I'm not talking about convincing skeptics before the transition of power, just that we need an accounting over the coming months.

If we dont get it the skeptics wont have any reason to believe the election was fair and thats a serious problem. Its one thing when maybe 100,000 people think the election was rigged and another when tens of millions have suspicions. Without an official audit biased researchers could create a narrative and we'll get more conspiracy theories to debunk while other evidence they cant access is ignored.

 

[Sofista]

Julius Streicher, for those who don’t know, was a Nazi publisher who, as far as I can tell, was hanged for speech. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/judstrei.asp. It was horribly anti-Semitic but he was not a Nazi leader, did not sign deportation orders or participate in meetings planning Nazi atrocities

If you never read it, Kurt Vonnegut's Mother Night could be enlightening on the issue.

 

[Bamspeedy]

What this analysis leaves out is that the vast majority of court cases were dismissed on procedural grounds, either the joke combo of "no damages --> laches" (implication being filings were either too early or late as convenient) or "standing". In most of the contested states, the one obvious measure (signature verification) was refused audit, despite in some cases their election officials promising to do so and then not doing so. The statistical evidence/merits of cases straight up were not heard in court, and that is why so many people smell something. That and states violating their own laws to change processes without the involvement of their legislatures.

I remember one of the 'filing was too late' cases. Trump's team was seeking as a solution to their complaint was to stop counting votes. All votes had already been counted, so 'Stop the counting' was an impossibility.

Signature verification-In any sane election center the signature has already been verified, sometimes twice. After that, the ballots are separated from the envelopes so even if you do find inconsistencies, there is no way to know who that person voted for.
1. Voter requests a ballot, providing ID and signature.
2. Voter, after receiving ballot, fills out ballot, puts ballot in envelope, signs the envelope.
3. Upon receiving the envelope, signature on envelope is compared to signature on ballot request.
4. Day of counting votes-signatures are compared (if not done already, or in some cases done again)
5. Signatures have matched-open envelope, separate envelope from ballot (for voter privacy as to who they voted for). It now becomes impossible to know who that person voted for, just like when an 'in person voter' is anonymous when he drops his ballot in the box.

Most of the trump team's legal challenges were laughed out of court because there was little to no evidence to back up those claims. To get a judge to consider your complaint you need more evidence than just making stuff up.
Not to mention the 'remedies'/compensation his legal team asked for was to attempt to throw out millions of legal votes (in black dominated areas, usually).
While the 127,000 'drive thru' in a district in Texas the GOP was challenged because the votes were "not cast inside a building" doesn't sound like an honest attempt at battling voter fraud, but an attempt at voter suppression (especially if the 'remedy' as to throw out not just the drive thru voters but also the over 1 million absentee ballots). Add to that confusion over those drive thru voters not knowing if their votes are counted, thus have to vote in person, but if the votes do end up being counted, now they've voted twice, you need a decision on this well before the day before the election. (court decision was Nov 2, election Nov 3)
Texas trying to get Wisconsin and other states results overturned? WTF?

 

[El_Machinae]

Too many cases were bad-faith, which (I guess) diluted the good-faith ones.
That's a running problem in any type of "pile on accusations" phase of political fighting. A certain threshold of new accusations as credibility to the initial ones. And then too many accusations eventually lead to too many low-quality accusations, which then dilute the concern regarding any good ones.

Republicans are aware of this, because of the sexual assault accusations against Trump. Access Hollywood nearly sunk him, but after 18 accusations (or whatever) nobody could be bothered to really care about the few accusations that were really credible.

So, with people who liked the election results, the overwhelming number of bad-faith lawsuits just created the impression that The Concern was fictitious. And this is why some of the more intelligent Trump supporters have insights into some of the cases that will never be heard across the aisle.

All that said, I doubt the majority of the people who thought that Pence was a coward really knew anything about high-level concerns about specific court cases.

 

[Bugfatty300]

The collective accusations of sexual assault accusations against trumpy would only loose credibility if it exceeded the number of humans who have ever lived.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Texas trying to get Wisconsin and other states results overturned? WTF?

That's easy. It was show. And people fell for it. Very, very willingly fell for it.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment

Does this mean Trump can't issue any pardons anymore?

 

[Cloud_Strife]

It's so weird that this keeps happening!

 

[uppi]

Does this mean Trump can't issue any pardons anymore?

My interpretation of that would be that the President cannot grant pardons for successful impeachments. As long as Trump is still President he should still be able to issue pardons. But not for his own impeachment trial, even if he was able to issue self-pardons.

 

[Samson]

I think I we can live w/o social media and basically I think we are not psychologically/socially/legally able to handle it. I could see doing away with sec. 230 which by my understanding would really undermine most social network business models by greatly increasing liability risk. But if unmoderated internet forums lead to the collapse of civilization then it is a small price to pay. Some people just can't let us have nice things.

The alternative to twitter/facebook/CFC moderation is likely to be 8kun / usenet style unmoderated discussion. I do not see that as an improvement to what we have here. Possibly better than facebook though.

"Twice-impeached, single-term former president Trump" has a unique ring to it. TISTFP is less catchy than POTUS, but hey, "loser" is even more catchy and we all know that he cannot bear to consider that in relation to himself.

So close, can we do just a bit better? My first try is twice-impeached, term singular un-president (TITSUP), but is is rather forced.