Are Boycotting Entities Outside North Carolina Etc. Practicing Sedition of Sovereign Democracy?

[Skylar]

...and... is it proper to use economic sanctions, blackmail or slander campaigns of elected officials to force a state's majority rule to buckle to a minority agenda outside its borders? Or is that sedition?

No that is perfectly legit. The people own the government, not the other way around. If a state mandates everyone has to wear purple on Fridays then it's up to everyone who lives there or visits to wear anything but purple.

Hey idiot, the people of NC voted FOR their elected officials who passed the law knowing full well their stance on the LGBT cult values. So what you just said is a strawman. If the people of NC voted in elected officials who stood for during their campaigns "everyone wearing purple on Fridays", then a minority holding that state hostage until it gave up the purple-Friday thing would be sedition.

And where, pray tell, did the people of NC vote that the NBA has to have their All Star game in Charolette? Or that Paypal has to open a new call center? Or that Deutche Bank must expand its operations in the State?

There is none. The requirements and obligations you've imagined simply don't exist. Nor are the voters of North Carolina immune from consequence for voting in folks who would create such a discriminatory law.

And your 'sedition' babble is yet another glorious example of how you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. As nothing you've described is even remotely related to 'sedition'.

 

[IsaacNewton]

...and... is it proper to use economic sanctions, blackmail or slander campaigns of elected officials to force a state's majority rule to buckle to a minority agenda outside its borders? Or is that sedition?

No that is perfectly legit. The people own the government, not the other way around. If a state mandates everyone has to wear purple on Fridays then it's up to everyone who lives there or visits to wear anything but purple.

Hey idiot, the people of NC voted FOR their elected officials who passed the law knowing full well their stance on the LGBT cult values. So what you just said is a strawman. If the people of NC voted in elected officials who stood for during their campaigns "everyone wearing purple on Fridays", then a minority holding that state hostage until it gave up the purple-Friday thing would be sedition.

Sorry, free speech trumps all that. Otherwise no one could say anything about any law. Not gonna happen.

 

[Skylar]

...and... is it proper to use economic sanctions, blackmail or slander campaigns of elected officials to force a state's majority rule to buckle to a minority agenda outside its borders? Or is that sedition?

No that is perfectly legit. The people own the government, not the other way around. If a state mandates everyone has to wear purple on Fridays then it's up to everyone who lives there or visits to wear anything but purple.

Hey idiot, the people of NC voted FOR their elected officials who passed the law knowing full well their stance on the LGBT cult values. So what you just said is a strawman. If the people of NC voted in elected officials who stood for during their campaigns "everyone wearing purple on Fridays", then a minority holding that state hostage until it gave up the purple-Friday thing would be sedition.

Sorry, free speech trumps all that. Otherwise no one could say anything about any law. Not gonna happen.

Laughing...per Sil's insanity, speaking out against a law with the intent of getting the law changed is 'sedition'.

 

[IsaacNewton]

...and... is it proper to use economic sanctions, blackmail or slander campaigns of elected officials to force a state's majority rule to buckle to a minority agenda outside its borders? Or is that sedition?

No that is perfectly legit. The people own the government, not the other way around. If a state mandates everyone has to wear purple on Fridays then it's up to everyone who lives there or visits to wear anything but purple.

Hey idiot, the people of NC voted FOR their elected officials who passed the law knowing full well their stance on the LGBT cult values. So what you just said is a strawman. If the people of NC voted in elected officials who stood for during their campaigns "everyone wearing purple on Fridays", then a minority holding that state hostage until it gave up the purple-Friday thing would be sedition.

Sorry, free speech trumps all that. Otherwise no one could say anything about any law. Not gonna happen.

Laughing...per Sil's insanity, speaking out against a law with the intent of getting the law changed is 'sedition'.

How would that even work. No one could ever challenge a law? Ludicrous.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Private companies have the right to do whatever they want, the US Government , however, should NOT be using threats to impact state decisions.

Those of you who support the current administration need to look at the bigger picture. What happens when an administration you don't like pressures a state to do something you don't like? Do you simply shrug and say "well that's the way it goes?" Or do you say "hey, what happened to states' rights?" I think we all know the answer to that.

Americans, wake up, and start defending ALL rights, even those of the people you disagree with.

 

[Skylar]

Private companies have the right to do whatever they want, the US Government , however, should NOT be using threats to impact state decisions.

Why not?

Conservatives love to laud the market. Well, this is what 'the market' looks like.

Those of you who support the current administration need to look at the bigger picture. What happens when an administration you don't like pressures a state to do something you don't like? Do you simply shrug and say "well that's the way it goes?" Or do you say "hey, what happened to states' rights?" I think we all know the answer to that.

Disney is not 'the administration'. Nor is Paypal, Deutch Bank or any of the others.

Americans, wake up, and start defending ALL rights, even those of the people you disagree with.

Deciding not to expand business into a given state isn't an infringement of anyone's rights.

 

[Mac1958]

 

[bodecea]

...and... is it proper to use economic sanctions, blackmail or slander campaigns of elected officials to force a state's majority rule to buckle to a minority agenda outside its borders? Or is that sedition?

No that is perfectly legit. The people own the government, not the other way around. If a state mandates everyone has to wear purple on Fridays then it's up to everyone who lives there or visits to wear anything but purple.

Hey idiot, the people of NC voted FOR their elected officials who passed the law knowing full well their stance on the LGBT cult values. So what you just said is a strawman. If the people of NC voted in elected officials who stood for during their campaigns "everyone wearing purple on Fridays", then a minority holding that state hostage until it gave up the purple-Friday thing would be sedition.

Sorry, free speech trumps all that. Otherwise no one could say anything about any law. Not gonna happen.

Laughing...per Sil's insanity, speaking out against a law with the intent of getting the law changed is 'sedition'.

That is the kind of thing we had a Revolution over in the 1770s. Silly would have been a good Royalist back then.

 

[Mac1958]

Americans, wake up, and start defending ALL rights, even those of the people you disagree with.

Couldn't agree more, and that applies to those on BOTH ends of the spectrum.
.

 

[Silhouette]

Sorry, free speech trumps all that. Otherwise no one could say anything about any law. Not gonna happen.

We'll see. It's not like all cases that will ever be heard before SCOTUS have already been heard. Skylar would like us to think so but alas, it isn't true.

Targeting elected officials for the reason they were elected (the platform they ran on which got the millions to cast votes for them) or an entire state's gaggle of voters, imposing hurt or sanctions upon them for self-rule on a controversial topic like letting men in girls bathrooms...forcing them to "change their minds" is duress. And its sedition. I'd like to see a new conservative Justice's opinion on targeting unraveling democratic rule on controversial topics in states with sanctions by outside entities. Like to see what s/he might think about that..

 

[Silhouette]

Threatening government officials of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
*****

Threatening government officials of the United States is a serious crime under federal law. Threatening the President of the United States is a Class E felony under 18 U.S.C. § 871, punishable by up to 5 years of imprisonment, that is investigated by the United States Secret Service. Threatening other officials is a Class C or D felony, usually carrying maximum penalties of 5 or 10 years under 18 U.S.C. § 875, 18 U.S.C. § 876 and other statutes, that is investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation....

... >When national boundaries are transcended by such a threat, it is considered a terrorist threat <

*********
(How about state boundaries?)

continued...

**********

...the Committee on the Judiciary stated that "Clearly it is a proper Federal function to respond to terrorists and other criminals who seek to influence the making of Federal policies...

...There are three elements of the offense of making an illegal threat: (i) there must be a transmission in interstate commerce; (ii) there must be a communication containing the threat; (iii) and the threat must be a threat to injure the person of another.[4] Threats can also sometimes be punished under the statutes criminalizing assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain United States Government officers or employees[5

*********

The legal question will be, does this apply to impeding state government officers or employees as well as federal. I'd think that would be an easy "yes".

*********

There is also a 6-level official victim enhancement, which makes the recommended penalty, per the sentencing table, approximately double that which would apply if an ordinary citizen were the victim.[7] There can be many motives for making threats, including political motives or a desire to frame someone else...The person's intent can greatly affect the sentence....

...In determining what constitutes a true threat, the courts hold that what must be proved is that a reasonable recipient of the communication would consider it a threat under the circumstances. Thus, a statement to a judge that "You and your family are going to die" would be regarded as a true threat, even if the defendant claimed that he meant it as a literal, biological truth.[9] If a threat is made to multiple individuals, it may be considered to be outside of the guidelines heartland, and therefore to warrant an enhancement.[10]

******
Or the threat "you and the citizens of your state are going to suffer economically" or "the duly elected governor of your state is going to be publicly slandered to your collective demise until he steps down" unless you revoke the religious protection law you just enacted...or let men use the women's bathrooms...or let gays deprive your children via contract of either a mother or father for life...or...or...or...or...or..

There literally has been no end to the escalation using the media mouthpiece of the Rachael Maddow show and others to accomplish these threats against entire States or regions.

 

[Syriusly]

Threatening government officials of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
*****

Threatening government officials of the United States is a serious crime under federal law. Threatening the President of the United States is a Class E felony under 18 U.S.C. § 871, punishable by up to 5 years of imprisonment, that is investigated by the United States Secret Service. Threatening other officials is a Class C or D felony, usually carrying maximum penalties of 5 or 10 years under 18 U.S.C. § 875, 18 U.S.C. § 876 and other statutes, that is investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.....

And who has threatened any government officials?

Remember- posting the facts about an elected official is not a threat.
Even threatening to post the facts about an elected official is not a threat.

Threats have to threats of criminal action- threats of bodily harm, etc.

As usual- you are delusional.

 

[Syriusly]

Sorry, free speech trumps all that. Otherwise no one could say anything about any law. Not gonna happen.

We'll see. It's not like all cases that will ever be heard before SCOTUS have already been heard. Skylar would like us to think so but alas, it isn't true.

Targeting elected officials for the reason they were elected (the platform they ran on which got the millions to cast votes for them) or an entire state's gaggle of voters, imposing hurt or sanctions upon them for self-rule on a controversial topic like letting men in girls bathrooms...forcing them to "change their minds" is duress. And its sedition. I'd like to see a new conservative Justice's opinion on targeting unraveling democratic rule on controversial topics in states with sanctions by outside entities. Like to see what s/he might think about that..

You are delusional.

And growing more desperate.

I suspect your complete and total failure in your predictions regarding Trump and NY are making you more delusional.

 

[Silhouette]

And who has threatened any government officials?

Companies have threatened economic sanctions on entire states for duly enacting laws, by their duly-elected representatives for restricting men from using women's bathrooms. That is a HIGHLY CONTROVERSIAL proposal BTW and states have every single right in the universe to refuse without economic duress imposed upon them. States have a mandate to protect their citizens, including women and girls who depend upon the privacy of female-only facilities to do their normal bodily activities without imposition from the opposite gender.

Remember- posting the facts about an elected official is not a threat.
Even threatening to post the facts about an elected official is not a threat.

It is if you preface your slanderous attack with "this official just enacted a law that pisses me off, so now I'm going to trump up a public flogging of this man's private life with the professed hope that my attack will result in unseating him as a governor" (who was duly elected by millions because of his position on traditional marriage...with all its flaws and foibles aforeknown by said voters).

Cue to 1:12

Threats have to threats of criminal action- threats of bodily harm, etc.

Threats also can be economic harm or harm to a person's career, or to erase the power of the vote of an entire state's electorate....

 

[Syriusly]

And who has threatened any government officials?

Companies have threatened economic sanctions on entire states for duly enacting laws, by their duly-elected representatives for restricting men from using women's bathrooms. That is a HIGHLY CONTROVERSIAL proposal BTW and states have every single right in the universe to refuse without economic duress imposed upon them...

And once again- who has threatened any government officials?

You have pointed out that companies have told States that they are going to discontinue doing business in the states- that is no threat to a government official.

No threat of physical harm- no threat of committing a crime.

A business can and does tell states regularly that they will not do business in the state because of conditions within the state.

Stop listening to the voices in your head- they lie.

 

[mdk]

And who has threatened any government officials?

Companies have threatened economic sanctions on entire states for duly enacting laws, by their duly-elected representatives for restricting men from using women's bathrooms. That is a HIGHLY CONTROVERSIAL proposal BTW and states have every single right in the universe to refuse without economic duress imposed upon them. States have a mandate to protect their citizens, including women and girls who depend upon the privacy of female-only facilities to do their normal bodily activities without imposition from the opposite gender.

Remember- posting the facts about an elected official is not a threat.
Even threatening to post the facts about an elected official is not a threat.

It is if you preface your slanderous attack with "this official just enacted a law that pisses me off, so now I'm going to trump up a public flogging of this man's private life with the professed hope that my attack will result in unseating him as a governor" (who was duly elected by millions because of his position on traditional marriage...with all its flaws and foibles aforeknown by said voters).

Cue to 1:12

Threats have to threats of criminal action- threats of bodily harm, etc.

Threats also can be economic harm or harm to a person's career, or to erase the power of the vote of an entire state's electorate....

Reporting that the governor is a cheating pig isn't a slanderous attack. Besides, admitted to his affairs. Is he guilty of slander now? lol

 

[Syriusly]

And who has threatened any government officials?

Companies have threatened economic sanctions on entire states for duly enacting laws, by their duly-elected representatives for restricting men from using women's bathrooms. That is a HIGHLY CONTROVERSIAL proposal BTW and states have every single right in the universe to refuse without economic duress imposed upon them. States have a mandate to protect their citizens, including women and girls who depend upon the privacy of female-only facilities to do their normal bodily activities without imposition from the opposite gender.

Remember- posting the facts about an elected official is not a threat.
Even threatening to post the facts about an elected official is not a threat.

It is if you preface your slanderous attack with "this official just enacted a law that pisses me off, so now I'm going to trump up a public flogging of this man's private life with the professed hope that my attack will result in unseating him as a governor" (who was duly elected by millions because of his position on traditional marriage...with all its flaws and foibles aforeknown by said voters).

Cue to 1:12

Threats have to threats of criminal action- threats of bodily harm, etc.

Threats also can be economic harm or harm to a person's career, or to erase the power of the vote of an entire state's electorate....

Reporting that the governor is a cheating pig isn't a slanderous attack. Besides, admitted to his affairs. Is he guilty of slander now? lol

What are the required elements for slander?

Slander is the oral communication of false statements that are harmful to a person's reputation. If the statements are proven to be true, it is a complete defense to a charge of slander.

Not slander to report that a public figure is an adulterer.

 

[mdk]

And who has threatened any government officials?

Companies have threatened economic sanctions on entire states for duly enacting laws, by their duly-elected representatives for restricting men from using women's bathrooms. That is a HIGHLY CONTROVERSIAL proposal BTW and states have every single right in the universe to refuse without economic duress imposed upon them. States have a mandate to protect their citizens, including women and girls who depend upon the privacy of female-only facilities to do their normal bodily activities without imposition from the opposite gender.

Remember- posting the facts about an elected official is not a threat.
Even threatening to post the facts about an elected official is not a threat.

It is if you preface your slanderous attack with "this official just enacted a law that pisses me off, so now I'm going to trump up a public flogging of this man's private life with the professed hope that my attack will result in unseating him as a governor" (who was duly elected by millions because of his position on traditional marriage...with all its flaws and foibles aforeknown by said voters).

Cue to 1:12

Threats have to threats of criminal action- threats of bodily harm, etc.

Threats also can be economic harm or harm to a person's career, or to erase the power of the vote of an entire state's electorate....

Reporting that the governor is a cheating pig isn't a slanderous attack. Besides, admitted to his affairs. Is he guilty of slander now? lol

What are the required elements for slander?

Slander is the oral communication of false statements that are harmful to a person's reputation. If the statements are proven to be true, it is a complete defense to a charge of slander.

Not slander to report that a public figure is an adulterer.

Reality doesn't matter to Mentally Sil. lol

 

[Syriusly]

[
It is if you preface your slanderous attack with "this official just enacted a law that pisses me off, so now I'm going to trump up a public flogging of this man's private life with the professed hope that my attack will result in unseating him as a governor" (who was duly elected by millions because of his position on traditional marriage...with all its flaws and foibles aforeknown by said voters).

Cue to 1:12

..

So I went to 1:12 and what a shock- you are lying again.

Madow of course didn't say what you said she said.
Nor did she trump up anything- the tape is news reporting the sex scandal about a governor.
Nor does she 'profess' a hope that this will unseat him- she predicts it likely will- hardly a shock there.

If you were forbidden from lying- you couldn't post here.

Oh wait- thats why you stopped posting at that other discussion site......

 

[Syriusly]

I have to credit Silhouette for this:

If it wasn't for her I would never have listened to all of the reporters asking Alabama's governor about his sex scandal and heard his bizarre responses.

Thank you Silhouette for bringing these sex scandals to our attention.