Politics And Current Events

[Freddy Rumsen]

A fool and his money are soon parted.

[NTP66]

The explanation is right at the end:

Bannon faces federal criminal charges for his involvement with a private nonprofit that raised money to build a wall on the U.S. border with Mexico. Prosecutors allege Bannon and other people associated with the project pilfered donations for their personal use. Bannon has denied the charges.

Trump, as president, has unchecked pardon power for federal crimes.

[Willie Kool]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/14/politics ... index.html

I wish they would have waited to announce anything about this investigation until after Trump does his pardons.

Doesn't matter. Those wouldn't be federal charges.

[Gaucho]

[Shyster]

He's fired up

It is protected speech. Even if complete lies, lies are protected speech. See, e.g., United States v. Alvarez.

[Willie Kool]

It is protected speech. Even if complete lies, lies are protected speech. See, e.g., United States v. Alvarez.

I believe that one could reasonably argue that the tweet quoted crosses the line into defamation, so no.

[Freddy Rumsen]

President Pence out and about.

[King Colby]

It is protected speech. Even if complete lies, lies are protected speech. See, e.g., United States v. Alvarez.

I believe that one could reasonably argue that the tweet quoted crosses the line into defamation, so no.

Defamation requires damages to a person or entity. I dont think "democrats" would qualify...

[Willie Kool]

It is protected speech. Even if complete lies, lies are protected speech. See, e.g., United States v. Alvarez.

I believe that one could reasonably argue that the tweet quoted crosses the line into defamation, so no.

Defamation requires damages to a person or entity. I dont think "democrats" would qualify...

I think that the Democratic party would qualify as an entity.

[Willie Kool]

His real point though is that Twitter should have, at the least, marked these tweets as false rather than disputed.

[King Colby]

It is protected speech. Even if complete lies, lies are protected speech. See, e.g., United States v. Alvarez.

I believe that one could reasonably argue that the tweet quoted crosses the line into defamation, so no.

Defamation requires damages to a person or entity. I dont think "democrats" would qualify...

I think that the Democratic party would qualify as an entity.

What were the damages

[Willie Kool]

It is protected speech. Even if complete lies, lies are protected speech. See, e.g., United States v. Alvarez.

I believe that one could reasonably argue that the tweet quoted crosses the line into defamation, so no.

Defamation requires damages to a person or entity. I dont think "democrats" would qualify...

I think that the Democratic party would qualify as an entity.

What were the damages

Reputation. By using STEAL he called them liars, cheats and/or theives. People believed it.

[King Colby]

I believe that one could reasonably argue that the tweet quoted crosses the line into defamation, so no.

Defamation requires damages to a person or entity. I dont think "democrats" would qualify...

I think that the Democratic party would qualify as an entity.

What were the damages

Reputation. By using STEAL he called them liars, cheats and/or theives. People believed it.

Yeah thats not how defamation works, but to your point its irrelevant and im ready to move on

[Shyster]

I believe that one could reasonably argue that the tweet quoted crosses the line into defamation, so no.

That speech may be defamatory does not mean it is unprotected by the First Amendment. Unprotected speech can be criminalized or banned by the government. Defamation hasn't been subject to criminal penalties since the 1964 and New York Times v. Sullivan, especially when it comes to public figures and entities. A number of states still have outdated criminal-libel laws on their books, and every once in a while some public official butthurt by something that someone said will have someone arrested. And they then get their asses handed to them in the subsequent First-Amendment-retaliation lawsuit.

You can sue someone in a civil suit and obtain damages for defamation. That's a purely civil matter where the First Amendment does not apply. But that doesn't mean that the speech is unprotected by the First Amendment.

[Willie Kool]

I believe that one could reasonably argue that the tweet quoted crosses the line into defamation, so no.

That speech may be defamatory does not mean it is unprotected by the First Amendment. Unprotected speech can be criminalized or banned by the government. Defamation hasn't been subject to criminal penalties since the 1964 and New York Times v. Sullivan, especially when it comes to public figures and entities. A number of states still have outdated criminal-libel laws on their books, and every once in a while some public official butthurt by something that someone said will have someone arrested. And they then get their asses handed to them in the subsequent First-Amendment-retaliation lawsuit.

You can sue someone in a civil suit and obtain damages for defamation. That's a purely civil matter where the First Amendment does not apply. But that doesn't mean that the speech is unprotected by the First Amendment.

I believe it would be quite easy to prove "actual malice" on Trump's part. His numerous statements prior to the election show a clear pattern of reckless disregard to whether his claims of fraud were true or false.

But like I said, this wasn't really Fetterman's point anyway.

[willeyeam]

Define what you mean by protected speech for a dummy like me.

[MWB]

Is it “not protected” in the sense that it’s an official statement from the president and can be used against him in impeachment proceedings?

[Troy Loney]

Maybe he means protected in that, it’s not protected from being censored on a social media platform?

I don’t believe there’s any plausible argument that he’s liable for either defamation or any other repercussion

[Shyster]

Define what you mean by protected speech for a dummy like me.

Protected speech is speech that the government cannot prohibit, suppress, or criminalize; speech covered by the First Amendment.

Unprotected speech would be those narrow classes of speech that are not covered by the First Amendment. That would include incitement, true threats, "fighting words," and obscenity.

[willeyeam]

Okay thank you. Thought we were on the censoring issue but I see what you guys are getting at.

[MR25]

So Trump was inciting people... Sounds like non-protected...?

[Freddy Rumsen]

America is healing.

[count2infinity]

I don’t get it..

[skullman80]

I don't get most of freddy's political posts...

[tifosi77]

It is protected speech. Even if complete lies, lies are protected speech. See, e.g., United States v. Alvarez.

I believe that one could reasonably argue that the tweet quoted crosses the line into defamation, so no.

Defamation requires damages to a person or entity. I dont think "democrats" would qualify...

I think that the Democratic party would qualify as an entity.

There was actually litigation on this point earlier this year, but I don't know if the question was resolved.

Besides, I think the exception here is more inciting a riot.....

Unprotected speech would be those narrow classes of speech that are not covered by the First Amendment. That would include incitement, true threats, "fighting words," and obscenity.

...like this ^^^.

His real point though is that Twitter should have, at the least, marked these tweets as false rather than disputed.

Aside from not policing their TOS/UA from the get go with Trump, this has been my next biggest beef with them.

It is only 'disputed' by crazy people.