Is the first amendment under attack?

[RileyG]

No it is not - arresting people for illegal activity is what the law commands.

Amen!

 

[RileyG]

"illegal protest" as determined by the law or DJT?

Protests against Trump or his agenda?

We are aware Trump doesn’t take criticism well. I admit that much. Remember what he said about Bishop Budde?

As I said, there’s room for improvement with him.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Pardoned on day one, expressing views Trump likes, but that is pure a coincidence.
View attachment 361965

I think that is what disturbs me more than anything. Pardoning them. It makes me sick.

 

[eclipsenow]

Most of Trump's platform is now implemented....except for one:

Invoking the Insurrection Act....

....now, he just needs to find an excuse to use it.

I'm swamped with life and online research projects right now - do you have a few paragraphs summary from a good source as to what that would mean?

 

[wing2000]

I'm swamped with life and online research projects right now - do you have a few paragraphs summary from a good source as to what that would mean?

“Nobody Knows What’s Coming Next”: Will Donald Trump Be Able to Use the Military Against Immigrants—and US Citizens?

Follow orders—or disobey? Members of the US armed forces may soon face a Hobson’s choice.

www.vanityfair.com

 

[essentialsaltes]

We're talking about illegal protests, so no, the 1st Amendment isn't under attack in this case. At least not yet...

Right, this is the same rhetorical dodge as with talking about the courts not having the power to block the president's legitimate Constitional powers. Nevermind that it is the courts who decide whether something is legitimately within the law or constitutional powers.

In this case, the chilling effect on universities may well lead to First Amendment violations as they try to please the Administration.

 

[eclipsenow]

“Nobody Knows What’s Coming Next”: Will Donald Trump Be Able to Use the Military Against Immigrants—and US Citizens?

Follow orders—or disobey? Members of the US armed forces may soon face a Hobson’s choice.

www.vanityfair.com

Paywall.

Meanwhile - when Trump appoints conspiracy tinfoil hat people like Kash Patel as the Director of the FBI - it seems like the Hoover years are back.
What could possibly go wrong?
Unethical wire tapping, manipulation, threats and blackmail against political opponents - Trump loves it all!
I wouldn't be surprised if there were moves to give him a 3rd term.

 

[wing2000]

Paywall.

Odd....I'm not a subscriber. I guess I got a freebie.

 

[essentialsaltes]

US yanks first visa of foreign student linked to ‘Hamas-supporting disruptions’ on college campus​

The effort — dubbed “Catch and Revoke” — will see officials pore through social media accounts of foreign students on visas to assess whether there’s evidence of sympathies toward Hamas in the wake of the Oct. 7, 2023, terror attack, Axios reported.

“Those who support designated terrorist organizations, including Hamas, threaten our national security. The United States has zero tolerance for foreign visitors who support terrorists,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared Thursday.

While providing material support to a terrorist organization is illegal, wearing an "I ❤️ Hamas!" t-shirt is protected speech.

Making official government actions based on protected speech could be unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. I doubt a similar situation has arisen previously.

 

[eclipsenow]

US yanks first visa of foreign student linked to ‘Hamas-supporting disruptions’ on college campus​

The effort — dubbed “Catch and Revoke” — will see officials pore through social media accounts of foreign students on visas to assess whether there’s evidence of sympathies toward Hamas in the wake of the Oct. 7, 2023, terror attack, Axios reported.

“Those who support designated terrorist organizations, including Hamas, threaten our national security. The United States has zero tolerance for foreign visitors who support terrorists,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared Thursday.

While providing material support to a terrorist organization is illegal, wearing an "I ❤️ Hamas!" t-shirt is protected speech.

Making official government actions based on protected speech could be unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. I doubt a similar situation has arisen previously.

Interesting. I would never wear such a T-shirt - I'd be more like "I support Gaza." But that's not the point, is it? The point is free speech helps guarantee democracy. I've been wrong before - and it was party free speech that helped me realise I was wrong on those issues. It helps the population learn, and it helps hold governments accountable.

Is there a difference in legal implications for visitors as opposed to Citizens? The principle might be the same ethically, but I'm wondering about the US law?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Interesting. I would never wear such a T-shirt - I'd be more like "I support Gaza." But that's not the point, is it?

Correct. I would never join a Nazi march in Skokie, Illinois, but it is protected speech.

 

[JSRG]

It is more than that in that it is not just campus protests that are under attack. Check this article:

Musk Shows Us What Actual Government Censorship On Social Media Looks Like

For years, we’ve watched self-proclaimed “free speech warriors” hyperventilate about imaginary government control of social media content moderation. Mysteriously, as I pointed ou…

www.techdirt.com

The constitutional stakes here are clear: Elon Musk is now officially designated as a government employee. That means his actions are constrained by the First Amendment — constraints that exist independently of the performative White House executive order barring government employees from “unconstitutionally abridging free speech.”​

​

Because here’s where it gets constitutionally interesting: when someone posted these government employees’ names on ExTwitter, Musk — now wearing both his government official and platform owner hats — first declared it “criminal” to name government employees:​

​

And then he followed it up by having the comment removed:​

​

Let’s be crystal clear about what just happened: A powerful government official who happens to own a major social media platform (among many other businesses) just declared that naming government employees is criminal (it’s not) and then used his private platform to suppress that information. These aren’t classified operatives — they’re public servants who, theoretically, work for the American people and the Constitution, not Musk’s personal agenda.​

​

This doesn’t just “seem like” a First Amendment issue — it’s a textbook example of what the First Amendment was designed to prevent.​

I don't see how any of this is in violation of the First Amendment. Elon can do what he wants on his own private platform, including banning people and deleting posts. If that's somehow a violation of the First Amendment, then that means no government employee at all can have any kind of message board or forum online if they restrict speech. By the logic of this article, if someone's a federal employee and sets up a Discord server to discuss something and bans someone, then suddenly they're violating the First Amendment. That's not how it works; working for the government doesn't mean every single thing you do is the government actually doing it. And Elon's claim it was a "crime" is irrelevant--he can delete anything off his platform he wants for any reason, criminal or not. Him saying it's a crime might be stupid if it's not, but doesn't have anything to do with whether it's a First Amendment issue to do what he wants on his own private platform.

A more plausible complaint is Elon having some conflicts of interest here, but that's a completely separate issue from First Amendment violations.

 

[Pommer]

Protests against Trump or his agenda?

Either, both are protected speech.

We are aware Trump doesn’t take criticism well. I admit that much. Remember what he said about Bishop Budde?

As I said, there’s room for improvement with him.

He seems to want to be able to control what people allow on their own campuses by withholding federal dollars if they don’t curtail speech that the President doesn’t like, what are you missing here?

 

[Nithavela]

Great, we’re in agreement that violence is “the line” that must not be crossed during protests.

Agent provocateur - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Fears of renewed FBI abuse of power after informant infiltrated BLM protests

‘Outraged’ senator Ron Wyden urges agency to explain tactics from 2020 protests reminiscent of rogue behaviour from decades past

www.theguardian.com

If it takes only a single act of violence to make an entire protest become illegal, you might as well rip the entire right to protest out of the constitution.

 

[RileyG]

Either, both are protected speech.

He seems to want to be able to control what people allow on their own campuses by withholding federal dollars if they don’t curtail speech that the President doesn’t like, what are you missing here?

Yes.

Freedom of speech is important.

I have nothing else to add.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Florida mayor seeks to evict cinema for showing Oscar-winning No Other Land​

The mayor of Miami Beach is attempting to evict an independent cinema from city-owned property after it screened No Other Land, the film about Palestinian displacement in the West Bank that just won the Oscar for best documentary.

Steven Meiner’s proposal would terminate O Cinema’s lease and withdraw $40,000 in promised grant funding. In a newsletter sent to residents on Tuesday, Meiner condemned the film as “a false one-sided propaganda attack on the Jewish people that is not consistent with the values of our City and residents”.

[Even if that characterization were true, that's just as protected as "2000 Mules".]

 

[SimplyMe]

There was also the Trump Executive Order blocking Perkins Coie lawyers from having clearances, entering government buildings, and even will strip clients of the law firm from working for the government. It will be interesting how this progresses but currently a court has blocked portions of the order, claiming it is a violation of the 1st, 5th, and 6th Amendments.

 

[eclipsenow]

This story even made the short 5 minute Aussie ABC news round-up the other day.
The world is watching.
The world is very concerned.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

What a coincidence that this will only apply on campuses and be applicable to students.

Illegal, emprisonement, cutting fundings of the school or campus (and probably expressing views Trump doesn't like)

View attachment 361964

Pardonned on day one, expressing views Trump likes, but that is pure a coincidence.
View attachment 361965

Let's not forget Trump was responsible for this action.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Kayleigh McEnany Says CBS’s Scott Pelley ‘Should’ve Been Arrested’ for Anti-Trump Graduation Speech​

The former White House press secretary made the explosive comment during Tuesday’s episode of The Five on Fox News, while reacting to Pelley’s now-viral address to graduates at Wake Forest University.

In the speech, Pelley warned students that under Trump, “the rule of law, journalism and freedom of speech are all under attack.”

Gutfeld then pointed out the obvious: “He wasn’t arrested after that, you know. He wasn’t arrested, Kayleigh.” [presumably intimating that the First Amendment is not under attack.]

That’s when McEnany dropped the bombshell: “Yeah, well, look, he should have been.”