Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Trump reportedly has told aides to refuse any payments to Giuliani
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Gene2memE" data-source="post: 75678940" data-attributes="member: 341130"><p>Their very valid argument would be that Trump's words don't meet the very specific requirements for incitement under US legal precedent.</p><p></p><p>These are known as the Brandenburg test. This states that speech must "<em>intend to incite or produce imminent lawless action</em>", and the speaker’s words or conduct must <em>"be likely to produce such action</em>".</p><p></p><p>It's very simple for a lawyer to argue Trump didn't intend the first part and his words weren't likely to produce the second. And they'd be well within their legal bounds in doing so.</p><p></p><p>Personally, I feel that Trump's actions did produce the "imminent lawless actions", but it's never going to stick in a legal case.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Gene2memE, post: 75678940, member: 341130"] Their very valid argument would be that Trump's words don't meet the very specific requirements for incitement under US legal precedent. These are known as the Brandenburg test. This states that speech must "[I]intend to incite or produce imminent lawless action[/I]", and the speaker’s words or conduct must [I]"be likely to produce such action[/I]". It's very simple for a lawyer to argue Trump didn't intend the first part and his words weren't likely to produce the second. And they'd be well within their legal bounds in doing so. Personally, I feel that Trump's actions did produce the "imminent lawless actions", but it's never going to stick in a legal case. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Trump reportedly has told aides to refuse any payments to Giuliani
Top
Bottom