Is the first amendment under attack?

[eclipsenow]

 

[Yttrium]

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

 

[wing2000]

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

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

 

[Paulos23]

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

This is from the President who says the law is what he says it is. I think we will all be surprised what he decides is an illegal protest.

 

[eclipsenow]

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

Is that like the fraudulent spending of the Biden administration? (She waves some papers around without showing what is actually on them - and makes wild assertions.) "Fraudulent" seems to be everything the Biden administration did that the Trumpists don't approve of. There's no actual breaking of the law - just spending money on things Trumpists don't like. That's fraud.

In the same way, any protest Trump doesn't like is "illegal."

Clamping down on free speech is one of the first acts of a dictator.

 

[wing2000]

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.

 

[Perpetual Student]

View attachment 361945

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)

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

 

[Always in His Presence]

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

 

[FreeinChrist]

Is that like the fraudulent spending of the Biden administration? (She waves some papers around without showing what is actually on them - and makes wild assertions.) "Fraudulent" seems to be everything the Biden administration did that the Trumpists don't approve of. There's no actual breaking of the law - just spending money on things Trumpists don't like. That's fraud.

In the same way, any protest Trump doesn't like is "illegal."

Clamping down on free speech is one of the first acts of a dictator.

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.​

 

[Perpetual Student]

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

Tweaking laws in such a way that mainly people who will say things you don't like will be affected by it, is an abuse of power and an attack on the first ammendment.
Timing pardons and changes of the law so that people who support you are safe from persecussion is abuse of power.

 

[Hans Blaster]

View attachment 361945

Here it is. We have the right to protest and the federal government has no power to do any of those things to students or staff at universities.

View attachment 361946

This is not. No politician is required to speak to us. (Nor are we required to speak to them or vote for them.)

 

[Nithavela]

You guys had a pretty good run, as far as democracies go.

 

[Pommer]

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

People are allowed to protest if they do it legally.
What if they protest and then nothing-at-all changes, they’re just allowed to do more legal protesting?

Great!
Who determines, though, when these protests are illegal and why would universities be held liable?

 

[Always in His Presence]

Tweaking laws in such a way that mainly people who will say things you don't like will be affected by it, is an abuse of power and an attack on the first ammendment.
Timing pardons and changes of the law so that people who support you are safe from persecussion is abuse of power.

Biden is no longer in office

People are allowed to protest if they do it legally.

agreed

What if they protest and then nothing-at-all changes, they’re just allowed to do more legal protesting?

Yes

Great!
Who determines, though, when these protests are illegal and why would universities be held liable?

You support anti Semitism and intimidation?

 

[Hans Blaster]

You support anti Semitism and intimidation?

It is not illegal to be anti-semetic or racist or mysogenist or homophobic or bigoted in general or in your protest. We have a legal right to be disgusting bigots, including (and especially) in our political speech.

 

[Pommer]

You support anti Semitism and intimidation?

I do not support the totally protected speech that is antisemitism.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Biden is no longer in office

I know. And I hadn't him in mind.

 

[Always in His Presence]

It is not illegal to be anti-semetic or racist or mysogenist or homophobic or bigoted in general or in your protest. We have a legal right to be disgusting bigots, including (and especially) in our political speech.

The moment the hatred turns into physical actions against a person or persons it absolutely is. And that is what is being addressed as illegal.

I do not support the totally protected speech that is antisemitism.

Note my reply above.

 

[durangodawood]

The moment the hatred turns into physical actions against a person or persons it absolutely is. And that is what is being addressed as illegal.

Then why did you bring antisemitism into the mix, if this is just about whats legal or illegal?

 

[Pommer]

The moment the hatred turns into physical actions against a person or persons it absolutely is. And that is what is being addressed as illegal.

Note my reply above.

Great, we’re in agreement that violence is “the line” that must not be crossed during protests.
If counter-protestors begin the violence, though, we’re going to have another discussion then.