• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: American Politics

WeHaveMoreCupsThanYou said:
Trump voters don't care about issues. They don't even know what the real issues are. Right now I have some evangelical woman on X trying to tell me that Harris doesn't stand up for women because of trans people being allowed to play for the girls junior varsity volleyball team and men in women's bathrooms. But Trump taking away her reproductive rights? Meh. Couldn't care less.

Trump voters are obsessed with non-issues that don't affect them and are unmoved by issues that they should care about because they will affect them. They only care about immigration insofar as they are racists looking to rationalize their racism. Right wing politicians have been using minorities to stoke fear in their supporters for hundreds of years. That train is never late. Once upon a time it was the Irish and the Italians. Today it's Mexicans and Haitians. It was bullshit then and it's bullshit now. Everything Trumpers pretend is important is bullshit. They don't want to contemplate the actual real issues because they know that they're on the wrong side of all of them.
Click to expand...
An Illegal killed a young college girl who was jogging on UGA's camps. You should just shut up about things you know nothing about.
 
FlyGuy said:
Wow huge foreign election interference
Click to expand...

full


If you're going to just make shit up, at least make funny shit up.
 
FlyGuy said:
A foreign countries political apparatus teaming up with a domestic party to try to help censor speech? Pretty damning.
Click to expand...

A couple of things:

- Matt Taibbi isn't a reliable source at this point. Him getting rolled by Elon over the twitter files without even being remotely skeptical of Elon until after he got rolled puts us a place where he doesn't deserve benefit of the doubt, or for his analysis to carry weight without significant corroboration.

- "Musk's Twitter" has become a haven for hate speech, full stop. Lots of speech is censored, and rightfully. Your supreme court has applied guidance to allowable speech for generations now. I've explained this to you before, but you have big ass sections of your criminal code dedicated to speech that is infact illegal. If you'd like an example, just search for the term "conspiracy to commit". Conspiracy to commit is simply talking about committing an act with someone else...illegal, unprotected speech. Incitement is illegal, unprotected speech. Libel/Slander is illegal, unprotected speech. Lots of speech isn't free and shouldn't be free.

- This isn't a foreign government teaming up with a domestic party. This is a special interest group attempting to organize support internationally. They're all parties who are concerned with online digital hate speech. Which is illegal in a number of countries and "Musk's Twitter" as mentioned, is a key provider of.


You can disagree on a philosophical level with the need for any controls on free speech, but this is a societal level conversation that has been going on for 100's of years about where the guard rails should be (or yes, if there should be any at all). What history shows us though is that when there are zero guard rails, incitement and violence against minority groups is almost never far behind. The laws and guidances we have today are largely written in the blood of injured or dead minorities. But whatever, I can at least understand on some level why a person would argue for completely unregulated speech. But calling this election interference as if Twitter was some sort of legitimate part of the election apparatus is fucking stupid.
 
MindzEye said:
A couple of things:

- Matt Taibbi isn't a reliable source at this point. Him getting rolled by Elon over the twitter files without even being remotely skeptical of Elon until after he got rolled puts us a place where he doesn't deserve benefit of the doubt, or for his analysis to carry weight without significant corroboration.

- "Musk's Twitter" has become a haven for hate speech, full stop. Lots of speech is censored, and rightfully. Your supreme court has applied guidance to allowable speech for generations now. I've explained this to you before, but you have big ass sections of your criminal code dedicated to speech that is infact illegal. If you'd like an example, just search for the term "conspiracy to commit". Conspiracy to commit is simply talking about committing an act with someone else...illegal, unprotected speech. Incitement is illegal, unprotected speech. Libel/Slander is illegal, unprotected speech. Lots of speech isn't free and shouldn't be free.

- This isn't a foreign government teaming up with a domestic party. This is a special interest group attempting to organize support internationally. They're all parties who are concerned with online digital hate speech. Which is illegal in a number of countries and "Musk's Twitter" as mentioned, is a key provider of.


You can disagree on a philosophical level with the need for any controls on free speech, but this is a societal level conversation that has been going on for 100's of years about where the guard rails should be (or yes, if there should be any at all). What history shows us though is that when there are zero guard rails, incitement and violence against minority groups is almost never far behind. The laws and guidances we have today are largely written in the blood of injured or dead minorities. But whatever, I can at least understand on some level why a person would argue for completely unregulated speech. But calling this election interference as if Twitter was some sort of legitimate part of the election apparatus is fucking stupid.
Click to expand...
What is "got rolled by Elon"?

Libel/slander are most of the time not criminal offenses.

Wrong, in "conspiracy to commit" you are not arresting for speech, you are arresting because an act is committed at some point.

"Definition: A person commits conspiracy in Georgia when they, together with one or more other persons, conspire to commit any crime and any one of them does an overt act to effect the object of the conspiracy.


These 2 conditions must be met to be considered conspiracy:

  1. An agreement between two or more people to commit a crime
  2. Commit an overt act by at least one person to further the criminal conspiracy"
Your incitement example also has time limitations and require a direct cause and effect to a lawless action immediately taking place due to the speech:

"Incitement to violence
The First Amendment does not protect speech that incites people to break the law, including to commit acts of violence. The Supreme Court's 1969 decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio established the "imminent lawless action" test to determine the degree of protection for incitement. This test states that incitement of events in the indefinite future is protected, but encouragement of "imminent" illegal acts is not."


You're brazen support of censorship is extremely Orwellian. Good God.


What history shows us though is that when there are zero guard rails, incitement and violence against minority groups is almost never far behind. The laws and guidances we have today are largely written in the blood of injured or dead minorities. But whatever, I can at least understand on some level why a person would argue for completely unregulated speech. But calling this election interference as if Twitter was some sort of legitimate part of the election apparatus is fucking stupid.
Click to expand...

-What history shows us is that censorship programs are always the start of totalitarian regimes that demoralize, ravage, and kill huge populations and eventually lead to a tipping point. Governments are representatives of the people, granted powers only because people agree to grant them powers to govern them. When governments decide they have the right to shut up the people who grant them their power then very bad things follow.
 
FlyGuy said:
What is "got rolled by Elon"?
Click to expand...

Elon provided him extremely curated access to the information that Elon wanted out, and withheld other evidence that would have been important to any attempt at actual journalism. They had a falling out after Taibbi published the twitter files over this, all very public knowledge.

FlyGuy said:
Wrong, in "conspiracy to commit" you are not arresting for speech, you are arresting because an act is committed at some point.
Click to expand...

An act in furtherance of the crime is the federal requirement, but not commit the act itself. So for example, you and I discuss robbing a bank and during that conversation discuss buying disguises to aid our escape...that meets 4 of the 5 federal criteria. I order a disguise off of Amazon (entirely legal by itself) but in conjunction with our conversation, is "furtherance" of the conspiracy. We can now be charged for conspiracy to commit the act without actually committing the act.

1729625459378.png

That's from the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centre if you need to know the source.

In court, it would be the agreement between you and I....the fucking speech...that is the illegal act.
FlyGuy said:
Your incitement example also has time limitations and require a direct cause and effect to a lawless action immediately taking place due to the speech:
Click to expand...

Blah blah blah. Incitement is illegal. Yes, it has requirements to be met like anything that's illegal.


FlyGuy said:
You're brazen support of censorship is extremely Orwellian. Good God.
Click to expand...

You don't know what Orwellian means, that's fine. What you mean is authoritarian. Which is still a hilariously bad mischaracterization of my position (I don't think you realize how out of step the American right's wonky take on unfettered free speech actually is with US legal precedent, nevermind how goofy it looks compared to the limitations on speech placed by other very free, very democratic western nations).

FlyGuy said:
What history shows us is that censorship programs are always the start of totalitarian regimes that demoralize, ravage, and kill huge populations and eventually lead to a tipping point.
Click to expand...

Except this isn't true at all. Pick your western nation with democratic traditions and they all have some sort of limitation on speech. None of us are teetering towards "the start of totalitarian regimes". Not us, the brits, the aussies or Kiwis, the nordic democracies, not the liberated eastern european democracies, not the french or germans, etc, etc. None of these nations have unfettered, completely "free" speech. In all of them certain types of speech is criminal in one way shape or form.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top