Talk about selective amnesia. The right is not immune by the kill free speech virus but … cancel culture / hate speech laws / mass hysteria social justice mania ( Covid vax / transgenderism/BLM/defund the police /me too/Handmaids Tales Cos play etc are all constructs of the Left. Equal exposure - please .
Bill, I joined FIRE because they were battling those things you mention. I have been pleased to see in the past couple of years they are non-partisan supporters of freedom of expression, and oppose any attempt to disembowel the 1st Amendment - regardless of political affiliation. (I don't think your suggest that cancel culture is a "construct of the Left" is accurate enough to be useful, but that's a different issue.)
GWAR rule. Blöthar the Berserker (Michael Bishop), holds a Ph.D. in Music from the University Of Virginia. I have always wanted to attend a concert, but I didn't want to get my clothes stained w fake blood & I am too delicate for mosh pits, lmao.
Just because you can legally express something, doesn't mean you should.
Since you're justifying their performance by reference to similar antics addressed at Biden and Obama, can you tell us how many times Biden and Obama were the subject of actual assassination attempts?
You'll have to remind me of the time Obama was almost killed by a bullet from a political opponent but for a fortuitous turn of his head.
"Should" is not a legal matter, so it's irrelevant here given that we're talking about actions taken by the Secret Service.
Also irrelevant is how many times anybody else was threatened or attempted to be killed.
You're incorrect that we're justifying this by reference to similar antics. We're pointing out those similar antics to show how absurd the claim is that this is a legitimate threat, or should be treated as such.
We are justifying this because it is First Amendment protected speech, regardless of whether you or anyone else finds it reprehensible. It's as simple as that.
"Also irrelevant is how many times anybody else was threatened or attempted to be killed."
You sure about that? If I know my actions are likely to incite physical violence, that's relevant.
"You're incorrect that we're justifying this by reference to similar antics. We're pointing out those similar antics to show how absurd the claim is that this is a legitimate threat, or should be treated as such."
In other words, you're justifying it by reference to similar antics.
"We are justifying this because it is First Amendment protected speech, regardless of whether you or anyone else finds it reprehensible. It's as simple as that."
It's protected speech until it's not. Law evolves. My point was simple: we live in an environment of elevated leftist violence. That's relevant to the question of incitement. At some point you cross that threshold. Are we there yet? Probably not, but standing on a static interpretation of First Amendment protections is legally naive.
1. You missed the second half of that first sentence, which is important: "Should" is not a legal matter, ***so it's irrelevant here given that we're talking about actions taken by the Secret Service.***
2. Yes, it is irrelevant how many times anybody else was threatened or attempted to be killed. That has nothing to do with whether or not someone knows their actions are likely to incite physical violence. You changed the subject there. If someone does something *that is likely and intended to incite imminent lawless action* then yes, it's a threat. It is absurd to think Gwar's act even remotely meets this criteria.
3. No, I'm not justifying it by reference to similar antics, I'm showing that similar antics were not threats and so it follows that this one wouldn't be either, absent some kind of evidence that this is somehow measurably different in its intention, which we have not seen.
4. It's protected speech right now because the First Amendment says what it says and jurisprudence around it has solidified these principles. It doesn't matter what environment we live in. It is not relevant to the question of incitement, which has a very specific legal definition for good reason. The threshold is contingent upon meeting that very specific legal definition. Gwar's stunt doesn't come close.
You can call it naive or whatever else you want, but you're still wrong.
"Yes, it is irrelevant how many times anybody else was threatened or attempted to be killed. That has nothing to do with whether or not someone knows their actions are likely to incite physical violence."
False on its face. In an environment of heightened political killings by the left, I know (and any reasonable person knows) that depicting violence against the right is more likely to incite physical violence.
" I'm showing that similar antics were not threats and so it follows that this one wouldn't be either"
Which is literally justifying by reference to similar antics. You keep saying you're not, but your words plainly indicate you are. Similar antics occurred in a different political environment when leftists weren't routinely attempting to slaughter (and succeeding in slaughtering) the right. Whether something is or is not a threat is arguably a function of the political environment. You want to claim it's not, but that's assuming the conclusion.
"It's protected speech right now because the First Amendment says what it says and jurisprudence around it has solidified these principles"
The First Amendment doesn't "say what it says". The First Amendment has been extensively interpreted through jurisprudence. What it says is nuanced and complex. Could there be circumstances in which the political environment, particularly the frequency of slaughter of the right by the left, make a difference in a case? Absolutely. Is that the case with Gwar's stunt? As I already said, probably not, but that doesn't mean it couldn't become so if the left continue on their murderous crusade.
The legal bar for incitement is "intended and likely to produce IMMINENT lawless action." There is no evidence whatsoever that Gwar's performances have ever been intended or likely to produce IMMINENT lawless action. So you're just wrong.
This point also relates to the whole thing about Gwar having done this before. It's not justified because it was done before, but the fact that it was done before definitely helps show why it's justified. Still, it is justified because them's the rules, sir.
You're lumping in Gwar with "the left" and "their murderous crusade," which is ridiculous and dubious, as well as irrelevant. "But things could be different if these details were different in this hypothetical scenario!" Sure, but that's not the scenario we're in, and even if we suddenly were in such a situation the bar for incitement remains what it is regardless.
"Yes, it is irrelevant how many times anybody else was threatened or attempted to be killed. That has nothing to do with whether or not someone knows their actions are likely to incite physical violence."
That statement is false. No amount of squirming will get you out of that.
Like I said, GWAR are probably ok, but your general conclusion is wrong.
The operational distinction in all these examples is Trump has actually been the target of serious assassination attempts.
I know liberals believe "silence is violence" and their political violence is mere "free expression", but like most things liberals believe, it ain't so.
GWAR is a national treasure. Protect them at all costs.
🙏🙏🙏🙏
Talk about selective amnesia. The right is not immune by the kill free speech virus but … cancel culture / hate speech laws / mass hysteria social justice mania ( Covid vax / transgenderism/BLM/defund the police /me too/Handmaids Tales Cos play etc are all constructs of the Left. Equal exposure - please .
We deal with what's happening when it's happening. When all that stuff you mentioned was going on, FIRE and I spoke out on it accordingly.
Appreciate your response .
Thank you for at least attempting to stop this viscous black hole of hyper partisanship we are spiraling into .
Be well
Bill
Bill, I joined FIRE because they were battling those things you mention. I have been pleased to see in the past couple of years they are non-partisan supporters of freedom of expression, and oppose any attempt to disembowel the 1st Amendment - regardless of political affiliation. (I don't think your suggest that cancel culture is a "construct of the Left" is accurate enough to be useful, but that's a different issue.)
This takes me back to my teen years, lmao!!!
GWAR rule. Blöthar the Berserker (Michael Bishop), holds a Ph.D. in Music from the University Of Virginia. I have always wanted to attend a concert, but I didn't want to get my clothes stained w fake blood & I am too delicate for mosh pits, lmao.
VIVA GWAR, though!
I was fortunate enough to see them with Oderus Urungus.
HELL YEAH!! 🤘🏻🤘🏻🤘🏻
Just because you can legally express something, doesn't mean you should.
Since you're justifying their performance by reference to similar antics addressed at Biden and Obama, can you tell us how many times Biden and Obama were the subject of actual assassination attempts?
You'll have to remind me of the time Obama was almost killed by a bullet from a political opponent but for a fortuitous turn of his head.
"Should" is not a legal matter, so it's irrelevant here given that we're talking about actions taken by the Secret Service.
Also irrelevant is how many times anybody else was threatened or attempted to be killed.
You're incorrect that we're justifying this by reference to similar antics. We're pointing out those similar antics to show how absurd the claim is that this is a legitimate threat, or should be treated as such.
We are justifying this because it is First Amendment protected speech, regardless of whether you or anyone else finds it reprehensible. It's as simple as that.
""Should" is not a legal matter"
I literally said that.
"Also irrelevant is how many times anybody else was threatened or attempted to be killed."
You sure about that? If I know my actions are likely to incite physical violence, that's relevant.
"You're incorrect that we're justifying this by reference to similar antics. We're pointing out those similar antics to show how absurd the claim is that this is a legitimate threat, or should be treated as such."
In other words, you're justifying it by reference to similar antics.
"We are justifying this because it is First Amendment protected speech, regardless of whether you or anyone else finds it reprehensible. It's as simple as that."
It's protected speech until it's not. Law evolves. My point was simple: we live in an environment of elevated leftist violence. That's relevant to the question of incitement. At some point you cross that threshold. Are we there yet? Probably not, but standing on a static interpretation of First Amendment protections is legally naive.
1. You missed the second half of that first sentence, which is important: "Should" is not a legal matter, ***so it's irrelevant here given that we're talking about actions taken by the Secret Service.***
2. Yes, it is irrelevant how many times anybody else was threatened or attempted to be killed. That has nothing to do with whether or not someone knows their actions are likely to incite physical violence. You changed the subject there. If someone does something *that is likely and intended to incite imminent lawless action* then yes, it's a threat. It is absurd to think Gwar's act even remotely meets this criteria.
3. No, I'm not justifying it by reference to similar antics, I'm showing that similar antics were not threats and so it follows that this one wouldn't be either, absent some kind of evidence that this is somehow measurably different in its intention, which we have not seen.
4. It's protected speech right now because the First Amendment says what it says and jurisprudence around it has solidified these principles. It doesn't matter what environment we live in. It is not relevant to the question of incitement, which has a very specific legal definition for good reason. The threshold is contingent upon meeting that very specific legal definition. Gwar's stunt doesn't come close.
You can call it naive or whatever else you want, but you're still wrong.
"Yes, it is irrelevant how many times anybody else was threatened or attempted to be killed. That has nothing to do with whether or not someone knows their actions are likely to incite physical violence."
False on its face. In an environment of heightened political killings by the left, I know (and any reasonable person knows) that depicting violence against the right is more likely to incite physical violence.
" I'm showing that similar antics were not threats and so it follows that this one wouldn't be either"
Which is literally justifying by reference to similar antics. You keep saying you're not, but your words plainly indicate you are. Similar antics occurred in a different political environment when leftists weren't routinely attempting to slaughter (and succeeding in slaughtering) the right. Whether something is or is not a threat is arguably a function of the political environment. You want to claim it's not, but that's assuming the conclusion.
"It's protected speech right now because the First Amendment says what it says and jurisprudence around it has solidified these principles"
The First Amendment doesn't "say what it says". The First Amendment has been extensively interpreted through jurisprudence. What it says is nuanced and complex. Could there be circumstances in which the political environment, particularly the frequency of slaughter of the right by the left, make a difference in a case? Absolutely. Is that the case with Gwar's stunt? As I already said, probably not, but that doesn't mean it couldn't become so if the left continue on their murderous crusade.
The legal bar for incitement is "intended and likely to produce IMMINENT lawless action." There is no evidence whatsoever that Gwar's performances have ever been intended or likely to produce IMMINENT lawless action. So you're just wrong.
This point also relates to the whole thing about Gwar having done this before. It's not justified because it was done before, but the fact that it was done before definitely helps show why it's justified. Still, it is justified because them's the rules, sir.
You're lumping in Gwar with "the left" and "their murderous crusade," which is ridiculous and dubious, as well as irrelevant. "But things could be different if these details were different in this hypothetical scenario!" Sure, but that's not the scenario we're in, and even if we suddenly were in such a situation the bar for incitement remains what it is regardless.
Have a lovely day.
You keep moving the goalposts.
"Yes, it is irrelevant how many times anybody else was threatened or attempted to be killed. That has nothing to do with whether or not someone knows their actions are likely to incite physical violence."
That statement is false. No amount of squirming will get you out of that.
Like I said, GWAR are probably ok, but your general conclusion is wrong.
The operational distinction in all these examples is Trump has actually been the target of serious assassination attempts.
I know liberals believe "silence is violence" and their political violence is mere "free expression", but like most things liberals believe, it ain't so.
The "party of free speech" criminalizes more parody. I mean 86*7 in seashells was extreme enough!
No it wasn't.
https://www.persuasion.community/p/you-cant-just-call-something-a-threat