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

[probinson]

And what they have accomplished is to confirm how petty a man Trump is. We didn't need a guy to sit under a tarp to show us that, but it all helps.

What an amazing accomplishment! Definitely worth 44 years of sitting under a tarp.

 

[essentialsaltes]

At the microcosm level.

Ashland County sheriff considering criminal charges over Democrats' Trump buttons at fair​

The Ashland County Democratic Party’s stall was full of buttons Thursday evening, ones that disturbed [fairgoer] Kaufman. County Sheriff Kurt Schneider said they broke fair rules.

"A red ball cap with 'felon' across the top of it, 'is he dead yet?' and some other innuendo about his obituary — we're referring to the President of the United States," Schneider told us Friday. "Also, a number, 86-47, which is removal of the President, who is the 47th president of the United States."

State Sen. Bill DeMora (D-Columbus) defended them.

"This is censorship," DeMora said. "It's a violation of the First Amendment right to free speech."

Kaufman disagreed.

"It’s a strict message of division and strife," Kaufman said.

Schneider said that he reported the incident to Trump's Secret Service, and his department is looking into possible criminal charges, as he and Kaufman thought they were threatening.

 

[probinson]

"A red ball cap with 'felon' across the top of it, 'is he dead yet?' and some other innuendo about his obituary — we're referring to the President of the United States,"

Why are Democrats so seemingly obsessed with the death of President? I mean, free speech and all, but if one is upset that they can't exercise their free speech rights to publicly wish death on another person, perhaps they should seek professional help.

 

[essentialsaltes]

but if one is upset that they can't exercise their free speech rights

Everyone should be upset at the violation of their constitutional rights.

 

[probinson]

Everyone should be upset at the violation of their constitutional rights.

Does one have a constitutional right to create and sell merchandise that wishes for and encourages the death of another person? If someone acts on the message of that merchandise, should the purveyors of the merchandise be held response for those actions?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Does one have a constitutional right to create and sell merchandise that wishes for and encourages the death of another person?

Yes one does. I don't think the 'hopeful' messages here are in the same time zone as the kind of direct solicitation of violence that could conceivably be illegal.

If someone acts on the message of that merchandise, should the purveyors of the merchandise be held response for those actions?

Courts could determine such a thing.

 

[A2SG]

Does one have a constitutional right to create and sell merchandise that wishes for and encourages the death of another person?

Yup.

If someone acts on the message of that merchandise, should the purveyors of the merchandise be held response for those actions?

Nope. For the same reason gun manufacturers and sellers aren't held responsible for crimes committed with the products they manufacture or sell.

-- A2SG, seems pretty cut and dry to me....

 

[probinson]

Yup.

I'm not so sure about that. I guess it would depend how far it goes. There's just plain bad taste, and then there's incitement to kill someone. Fine line, I guess.

But even if you're correct, just because one has a constitutional right to say something doesn't mean that they can way it wherever and whenever they want with impunity. Consider this forum. There are all kinds of constitutionally protected things that one were to say them on this forum they would be banned.

Nope. For the same reason gun manufacturers and sellers aren't held responsible for crimes committed with the products they manufacture or sell.

I'm sure in your mind, that's a perfect analogy, but I don't quite know why. If one incites someone to kill a person, that's very different than if one misuses something of their own volition. We talked earlier about Paul Pelosi, who was attacked with a hammer. Should the hammer manufacturer be held responsible? Of course not, because what people do with hammers once they buy them is on them.

 

[A2SG]

I'm not so sure about that. I guess it would depend how far it goes. There's just plain bad taste, and then there's incitement to kill someone. Fine line, I guess.

But even if you're correct, just because one has a constitutional right to say something doesn't mean that they can way it wherever and whenever they want with impunity. Consider this forum. There are all kinds of constitutionally protected things that one were to say them on this forum they would be banned.

Maybe so, but the specific action you described is not in any way illegal or actionable. Same as for the merch citing "Lock her up" or "Let's go Brandon."

I'm sure in your mind, that's a perfect analogy, but I don't quite know why. If one incites someone to kill a person, that's very different than if one misuses something of their own volition. We talked earlier about Paul Pelosi, who was attacked with a hammer. Should the hammer manufacturer be held responsible? Of course not, because what people do with hammers once they buy them is on them.

And what someone does as a result of following the dictates of a t-shirt or cap is also on them.

-- A2SG, is the analogy clearer now?

 

[essentialsaltes]

But even if you're correct, just because one has a constitutional right to say something doesn't mean that they can way it wherever and whenever they want with impunity. Consider this forum.

The topic is the Trump DOJ, which is prevented by the First Amendment from curtailing free speech.

But I'm glad people can suddenly and clearly understand the analogy to this website when it comes to what is and what isn't protected by freedom of speech. Mere weeks ago and people would be screaming about how Facebook was violating their free speech rights.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The topic is the Trump DOJ, which is prevented by the First Amendment from curtailing free speech.

But I'm glad people can suddenly and clearly understand the analogy to this website when it comes to what is and what isn't protected by freedom of speech. Mere weeks ago and people would be screaming about how Facebook was violating their free speech rights.

shrug emoticon

 

[probinson]

The topic is the Trump DOJ, which is prevented by the First Amendment from curtailing free speech.

But I'm glad people can suddenly and clearly understand the analogy to this website when it comes to what is and what isn't protected by freedom of speech. Mere weeks ago and people would be screaming about how Facebook was violating their free speech rights.

I'm not sure specifically what you're referring to with Facebook, but Zuckerberg told us that he was being pressured by the government to censor certain posts and people during COVID.

Likewise, it sure looks like the Trump FCC was pressuring Disney to cancel Kimmel's show.

I hope you can understand how there is a vast difference between the government pressuring a company to censor someone vs. them making that decision on their own and why one is a violation of the first amendment while the other is not.

 

[probinson]

Maybe so, but the specific action you described is not in any way illegal or actionable. Same as for the merch citing "Lock her up" or "Let's go Brandon."

Who said anything about it being "illegal"?

 

[rambot]

And yet the far left runs the Democratic Party.

I'm sorry but you couldn't be more wrong on this.

But I'd be curious to hear which far left positions the democrats espoused?
Are we talking about communism or their unwillingness to reject transgenderism?

 

[Hentenza]

I'm sorry but you couldn't be more wrong on this.

But I'd be curious to hear which far left positions the democrats espoused?
Are we talking about communism or their unwillingness to reject transgenderism?

I agree with you now but the progressives had a stronghold on the party during the last elections. It seems that the Democratic Party has done a bit of a shift toward moderates since.

 

[rambot]

I agree with you now but the progressives had a stronghold on the party during the last elections. It seems that the Democratic Party has done a bit of a shift toward moderates since.

Socially....I could agree with you....economically...oh my you are off base there.

 

[mark46]

I agree with you now but the progressives had a stronghold on the party during the last elections. It seems that the Democratic Party has done a bit of a shift toward moderates since.

Biden had a stranglehold on the 2020 election. He strangled the chances of the party will his refusal to make a 2023 announce that he wouldn't run for another team. The terrible lies and missteps of the Democrats during 2024 just made things much, much worse.

BTW, after her actions in 2023 and 2024, I CANNOT believe that ANYONE will listen to the whining of Harris about those who refuse to stand up to the flaws of Trump.

 

[mark46]

I agree with you now but the progressives had a stronghold on the party during the last elections. It seems that the Democratic Party has done a bit of a shift toward moderates since.

We speak as if the Democrats have any leadership or unity with regard to views.

2025 and 2026 elections will focus on the local candidates. PERHAPS, after the 2026 elections, a generally accepted set of Democratic views will emerge, but I doubt it. As should be the case, the consensus (if any) will result from the 2028 primaries.

 

[Hentenza]

Socially....I could agree with you....economically...oh my you are off base there.

Where do you think the democrats are economically?

 

[mark46]

Where do you think the democrats are economically?

Democrats are everywhere regarding economics, from those who believe in almost unregulated capitalism to those who believe in socialism.

Perhaps what distinguishes Democrats is a strong belief that the government (including the feds) should encourage and provide for an ever more robust safety net for the weak and poor among us.