The Trump DOJ goes "woke" and will target free speech.

[RocksInMyHead]

It was just a matter of time before they started heading that way.

What makes you think that?

 

[childeye 2]

It was just a matter of time before they started heading that way.

Evidence? Without evidence this above qualifies as slander. Slander is when something bad is said about others without evidence. See post #37.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

What, exactly, is libelous or defamatory about this question?

She is going after the speech that stops speech, and the ideas that stops ideas. Can you not see the difference? For example, if a political science professor tell her students, "Trump is a monster and I think every student who supports such a man should fail," should she keep her job knowing that now every conservative student will now be afraid of sharing their ideas truthfully?

 

[Say it aint so]

It was just a matter of time before they started heading that way.

There is no evidence of that what so ever.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

She is going after the speech that stops speech, and the ideas that stops ideas. Can you not see the difference?

I'm not sure how that relates to my post. A reporter asked the question that I quoted; Trump replied by saying that maybe they'll go after the reporter for being "unfair". You labelled this as "libel and defamation" and thus not protected speech. Maybe you misunderstood the question?

Also, recall that Bondi walked it back - she "clarified" later that by "hate speech" she actually meant "violent threats" - which is, indeed a perfectly reasonable thing to crack down on. But words have meanings, and "hate speech" does not mean "threats of violence."

For example, if a political science professor tell her students, "Trump is a monster and I think every student who supports such a man should fail," should she keep her job knowing that now every conservative student will now be afraid of sharing their ideas truthfully?

Probably not. That's, at minimum, grounds for a serious conversation with the dean and instituting extra review over her classes for a few semesters. But I'm not sure why the DOJ would need to get involved - it's not a crime.

 

[childeye 2]

For example, if a political science professor tell her students, "Trump is a monster and I think every student who supports such a man should fail," should she keep her job knowing that now every conservative student will now be afraid of sharing their ideas truthfully?

con·ser·va·tism
[kənˈsərvədizəm]
noun

1. commitment to traditional values and ideas with opposition to change or innovation:
   "proponents of theological conservatism"
2. the holding of political views that favor free enterprise, private ownership, and socially traditional ideas:
   "a party that espoused conservatism"
   • the doctrines of the Conservative Party of Great Britain or a similar party elsewhere:
     "the thrust of post-war Conservatism"

lib·er·al·ism
[ˈlib(ə)rəˌlizəm]
noun

1. willingness to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; openness to new ideas:
   "one of the basic tenets of liberalism is tolerance"
   • the holding of political views that are socially progressive and promote social welfare:
     "the borough prides itself on being a great bastion of liberalism and diversity"

Any reasoning based on a falsehood ends in a contradiction. It's not slander, to point out slander. It's slander to call someone a slanderer for pointing out a slanderer.

Your hypothetical above conveys Trump represents conservatism, when in reality Trump is recognized as a monster because instead of showing remorse for deceiving thousands into attacking the Capitol building based on slander, he doubles down with more slander against those pointing out the slander. The hypothetical therefore presents a contradiction of reasoning. Why? Because conservatism implies advocating socially traditional ideas, NOT slandering others.

 

[Hentenza]

There is no evidence of that what so ever.

Only if you stick your head in the sand.

 

[Say it aint so]

Only if you stick your head in the sand.

Sir, Ma'am show it.
Show the evidence where Merrick Garland was about to deny and go after people over speech.

 

[Hentenza]

Show it. Show the evidence where Merrick Garland was about to deny and go after people over speech.

The Bostok vs Clayton County, Ga. decision opened the door for continued litigation regarding civil penalties for misgendering someone. Many companies use this decision to develop hr policies and arbitrarily fire people for this. Although it begins as a civil penalty there are arguments to add it to a hate enhancement for crimes therefore jumping into the criminal arena. Under a far left liberal DOJ the chances increase dramatically that it would become criminal. See England as an example.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

It was just a matter of time before they started heading that way.

“They could have but didn’t, so now we going to” is an odd justification.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Cribbed from another thread: Deputy AG threatens RICO investigations for people who organize to yell at Trump:

Deputy AG Blanche says 'organized' Trump protesters could face criminal investigations

Todd Blanche said people who noisily protest President Trump could face criminal investigations if their actions are tied to groups pushing violence.

www.usatoday.com

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Cribbed from another thread: Deputy AG threatens RICO investigations for people who organize to yell at Trump:

Deputy AG Blanche says 'organized' Trump protesters could face criminal investigations

Todd Blanche said people who noisily protest President Trump could face criminal investigations if their actions are tied to groups pushing violence.

www.usatoday.com

Up next, the announcement of the administration’s strict enforcement of the “I’m rubber, you are glue” statute. Everybody will have to sit on the tarmac and think about they said until recess is over.

 

[Hentenza]

“They could have but didn’t, so now we going to” is an odd justification.

I’m not defending today’s DOJ but merely pointing out the way the the old DOJ was heading. There is no justification.

 

[childeye 2]

The Bostok vs Clayton County, Ga. decision opened the door for continued litigation regarding civil penalties for misgendering someone. Many companies use this decision to develop hr policies and arbitrarily fire people for this. Although it begins as a civil penalty there are arguments to add it to a hate enhancement for crimes therefore jumping into the criminal arena. Under a far liberal DOJ the chances increase dramatically that it would become criminal. See England as an example.

Merrick Garland didn't go after Crocodile Dundee.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

I’m not defending today’s DOJ but merely pointing out the way the the old DOJ was heading. There is no justification.

I mean, except for the justification that it didn’t happen, which is a pretty big and important one.

 

[Hentenza]

I mean, except for the justification that it didn’t happen, which is a pretty big and important one.

Technically speaking then what the right’s DOJ is being accused of has not happened yet either. Just in time fallacies permeate this forum anyway.

 

[rambot]

It was just a matter of time before they started heading that way.

What? Doubtful.

That guy was a sack of pudding.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Technically speaking then what the right’s DOJ is being accused of has not happened yet either.

There's a pretty big difference between you putting up a big conspiracy board to show how something was totally going to happen and the head of the DOJ explicitly announcing: "We're going to do this."

Just in time fallacies permeate this forum anyway.

Whataboutisms too.

 

[Hentenza]

There's a pretty big difference between you putting up a big conspiracy board to show how something was totally going to happen and the head of the DOJ explicitly announcing: "We're going to do this."

Whataboutisms too.

That’s what this forum is all about.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

I'm not sure how that relates to my post. A reporter asked the question that I quoted; Trump replied by saying that maybe they'll go after the reporter for being "unfair". You labelled this as "libel and defamation" and thus not protected speech. Maybe you misunderstood the question?

Also, recall that Bondi walked it back - she "clarified" later that by "hate speech" she actually meant "violent threats" - which is, indeed a perfectly reasonable thing to crack down on. But words have meanings, and "hate speech" does not mean "threats of violence."

Probably not. That's, at minimum, grounds for a serious conversation with the dean and instituting extra review over her classes for a few semesters. But I'm not sure why the DOJ would need to get involved - it's not a crime.

Well, I will just say that if she is specifically targeting speech that is intended to incite violence, that is not speech, that is a crime. But if she is going after speech that others find hateful or offensive, I completely disagree with her and it goes against everything Charlie Kirk worked and died for. You are free to swing your fists as much as you want, but your freedom ends when your fists touch my face.