- Feb 10, 2013
- 35,325
- 20,458
- 29
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Celibate
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Amen!No it is not - arresting people for illegal activity is what the law commands.
Protests against Trump or his agenda?"illegal protest" as determined by the law or DJT?
I think that is what disturbs me more than anything. Pardoning them. It makes me sick.Pardoned on day one, expressing views Trump likes, but that is pure a coincidence.
View attachment 361965
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?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?
We're talking about illegal protests, so no, the 1st Amendment isn't under attack in this case. At least not yet...
Paywall.“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.
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.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.
Correct. I would never join a Nazi march in Skokie, Illinois, but it is protected speech.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?
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.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:
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.
Either, both are protected speech.Protests against Trump or his agenda?
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?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.
Great, we’re in agreement that violence is “the line” that must not be crossed during protests.
Yes.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?
Let's not forget Trump was responsible for this action.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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?