“I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll defend to my dying day your right to say it”

[struth]

A grand jury is 100% a prosecutors tool to get indictments. And it takes the burden of responsibility off the AG's shoulders if he loses the trial

Secret proceedings, secret witnesses, the defense is not allowed a seat in the proceedings. Evidence that is not admissible in the actual trial can be presented.

The term Kangaroo Court comes to mind.

I don't think it takes the responsibility off anyone.

 

[SeaMajor7]

Nobody has aright to post on any private site unless that site wants you to do so.

The fucking GOVERNMENT doesn't have the "right" to dictate to a private company what they NEED TO CENSOR either!!!!!

 

[forkup]

actually a conspirary doesn't require speaking. It does require an agreement.

To reach an agreement when typically speaks. It's also a lame comeback.

I cited specific examples of lawless action described in the indictment by Trump. Those actions were Trump speaking. That speech is NOT protected.

 

[BULLDOG]

The fucking GOVERNMENT doesn't have the "right" to dictate to a private company what they NEED TO CENSOR either!!!!!

Seems the company would have mentioned they were being forced to do something they didn't want to do.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Democrats will wildly cheer it on.

Conservatives to a somewhat lesser extent

I've seen no conservatives supporting the suppression of speech.

The left will continue to view speech suppression as the evil it is

Utter bullshit

 

[gipper]

The fucking GOVERNMENT doesn't have the "right" to dictate to a private company what they NEED TO CENSOR either!!!!!

He doesn’t know those important details. Somehow he missed them. He comes here NEW everyday.

 

[struth]

To reach an agreement when typically speaks. It's also a lame comeback.

I cited specific examples of lawless action described in the indictment by Trump. Those actions were Trump speaking. That speech is NOT protected.

I am simply making it clear, an agreement doesn't require one to speak.

There was nothing unlawful about what you cited. You are claiming it is, with no evidence to support it. Trump, anyone, is allowed to disagree with the outcome of an election, challenge it, and ask Govt to address their concerns. That's all you cited.

 

[BULLDOG]

I've seen no conservatives supporting the suppression of speech.

Utter bullshit

Donald Trump: We're going to 'open up' libel laws

"We're going to have people sue you like you've never got sued before."

www.politico.com

 

[JGalt]

Nobody has aright to post on any private site unless that site wants you to do so.

That's irrelevant. When that private site is allowing governmental agencies to dictate who posts and what gets posted, social media needs to be regulated. It's the old "publisher vs. platform" argument.

 

[forkup]

The fucking GOVERNMENT doesn't have the "right" to dictate to a private company what they NEED TO CENSOR either!!!!!

They can flag posts to the private companies that they feel violates their terms of service. Not only that but when a post shows criminal activity the government has a right to demand it shut down.

Child porn for instance being an obvious example. Revenge porn being another in some states.

Freedom of speech has limits.

 

[DudleySmith]

What Does Free Speech Mean?

Among other cherished values, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. Learn about what this means.

www.uscourts.gov

Freedom of speech does not include the right.
To incite imminent lawless action.
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).

Obviously Democrats think otherwise; they helped fund BLM and allowed Antifa thugs to run loose in many major American cities. I'm betting you ignore that and want to keep claiming 'Trump incited a riot' with zero evidence to support the charges.

We can also note no Democrats and their pet faggots ever sniveled about 'separation of church and state' when Al Sharpton or Jesse 'HymieTown' Jackson and their ilk use their churches as fronts for political corruption.

So get used to people laughing at your sudden interest in the Constitution and law enforcement.

 

[BULLDOG]

That's irrelevant. When that private site is allowing governmental agencies to dictate who posts and what gets posted, social media needs to be regulated. It's the old "publisher vs. platform" argument.

As usual, you're just whining

 

[SeaMajor7]

They can flag posts to the private companies that they feel violates their terms of service. Not only that but when a post shows criminal activity the government has a right to demand it shut down.

Child porn for instance being an obvious example. Revenge porn being another in some states.

Freedom of speech has limits.

Yeah, but censorship by proxy over opinions about election integrity and questioning whether a certain "vaccine" is safe or effective is NOTHING like what you are citing!!!!! GTFOH!

 

[forkup]

I am simply making it clear, an agreement doesn't require one to speak.

There was nothing unlawful about what you cited. You are claiming it is, with no evidence to support it. Trump, anyone, is allowed to disagree with the outcome of an election, challenge it, and ask Govt to address their concerns. That's all you cited.

He is allowed to challenge it. He isn't allowed to urge people to make a knowingly false statement.

I don't need evidence to support it. I simply need to show the applicable law. 18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

And Trump did ask for a redress of grievances. He did so more than 60 times in a court of law, they were rejected.

You can't just say "I lost my case in court, so now I'm entitled to forge electoral votes".

That's not petitioning the government. That's fraud.

 

[forkup]

Yeah, but censorship by proxy over opinions about election integrity and questioning whether a certain "vaccine" is safe or effective is NOTHING like what you are citing!!!!! GTFOH!

The moment you can give me examples of that I'll listen. The government has a right to speak to a private company about what they should post. They can not demand that the company complies. I've seen no evidence that they did.

 

[SeaMajor7]

The moment you can give me examples of that I'll listen. The government has a right to speak to a private company about what they should post. They can not demand that the company complies. I've seen no evidence that they did.

The GOVERNMENT doesn't have the "right" to cite certain things as RUSSIAN DISINFORMATION especially when they are LYING about such!

 

[pknopp]

The moment you can give me examples of that I'll listen. The government has a right to speak to a private company about what they should post. They can not demand that the company complies. I've seen no evidence that they did.

Here is the rub. Words to the affect of removing section 230 protections if hosts didn't toe the line.

Both parties have threatened this.

 

[L.K.Eder]

"You are either with us or against us" preceded Obama.

he missed all that, conveniently.

 

[forkup]

Obviously Democrats think otherwise; they helped fund BLM and allowed Antifa thugs to run loose in many major American cities. I'm betting you ignore that and want to keep claiming 'Trump incited a riot' with zero evidence to support the charges.

We can also note no Democrats and their pet faggots ever sniveled about 'separation of church and state' when Al Sharpton or Jesse 'HymieTown' Jackson and their ilk use their churches as fronts for political corruption.

So get used to people laughing at your sudden interest in the Constitution and law enforcement.

Do you know what a generalization is?

I can show on this board, going to bat for Comey for reopening the investigation into Clinton a few days before the election.

I can show myself on this board, criticizing the whole idea of protests during a global pandemic.

I can show myself on this board condemning riots, no matter who's doing it.

I can show myself on this board, defending Trump's right to a fair trail.

I can show probably dozens of posts were I disagree with opinions of people " on my side"

I can further show myself admitting fault and even god forbid... change my mind on a heartfelt position.

My opinion is not based on what any Democrat tells me. I'm ideologically aligned of course, but I refuse to allow political affiliation influence my view on things.

This makes me more consistent then almost anyone on here.

 

[forkup]

Here is the rub. Words to the affect of removing section 230 protections if hosts didn't toe the line.

Both parties have threatened this.

The moment they do, I'll vehemently disagree, and the Supreme Court will shut it down. Most likely 9 to 0