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

OT: American Politics

MindzEye said:
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.



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.

View attachment 22455

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.


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




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).



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.
Click to expand...
So what that Taibbi published about direct coordination between the white house and twitter to censor private citizens was a lie?

"any one of them does an overt act to effect the object of the conspiracy." is no different than what you just explained. The speech did not trigger the illegality. I can talk about it all I want as long as no action is made to further it. I have NO IDEA how you can literally post the law saying an act is required and then say it's the speech. Holy shit lol.

Everything you posted proves speech is not illegal and that it's the conjunction with an act that allows for prosecution.

It's not my fault you don't understand Orwellian. Can't help you there. In regard to the US compared to other Western countries censorship complexes I am happy we do not emulate their bs where people are jailed for facebook comments. Can't imagine thinking that kind of bs is a success story.

"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."

Completely disagree. There are many examples of just that even if you do not see it as overt since the ones implementing them agree with your worldview.
 
FlyGuy said:
So what that Taibbi published about direct coordination between the white house and twitter to censor private citizens was a lie?

"any one of them does an overt act to effect the object of the conspiracy." is no different than what you just explained. The speech did not trigger the illegality. I can talk about it all I want as long as no action is made to further it. I have NO IDEA how you can literally post the law saying an act is required and then say it's the speech. Holy shit lol.

Everything you posted proves speech is not illegal and that it's the conjunction with an act that allows for prosecution.

It's not my fault you don't understand Orwellian. Can't help you there. In regard to the US compared to other Western countries censorship complexes I am happy we do not emulate their bs where people are jailed for facebook comments. Can't imagine thinking that kind of bs is a success story.

"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."

Completely disagree. There are many examples of just that even if you do not see it as overt since the ones implementing them agree with your worldview.
Click to expand...
www.theguardian.com

FBI arrests guardsman who applied for job on RentAHitman.com

Josiah Garcia reportedly told undercover agent he was an excellent shot and willing to torture people and cut off fingers or ears
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

www.bbc.com

US arrests Pakistani national for alleged plot to kill politicians

Asif Merchant is accused of trying to hire a hitman to kill politicians on US soil.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com

abc3340.com

Hoover man arrested for allegedly hiring hitman to kill family amid divorce

A Hoover man was arrested Monday on charges he tried to hire a hitman to kill his wife and children. Mohammad A.H. Mohammad was taken into custody by the FBI wi
abc3340.com abc3340.com

I don't think anybody actually got a hit taken out on them, and paying someone money isn't illegal.

Also, can you define "Free Speech"? Is it just words? Can it be art? How about Videos? All content?
 
FlyGuy said:
So what that Taibbi published about direct coordination between the white house and twitter to censor private citizens was a lie?
Click to expand...

It's the selective manner in what he wrote, which didn't support the narrative he was attempting to present (one in which the Democrats were in collusion with Twitter to censor stories unfavourable to them). Instead, when more information came to light it pretty clearly showed that

- Twitter was attempting to navigate some internal policies regarding hacked & leaked materials
- There was a pretty even divide among team members in charge of enforcing this regarding it, but very temporarily they decided to follow the existing policy before the policy got rewritten at the direction of Jack.
- Contact between that twitter team and both political parties was common, same with between them and both the Trump admin and later the Biden admin, with all of the above requesting takedowns of certain materials (Hunter's cock photos, for instance, was one of the requests the Biden admin made). Twitter appears to have applied their policies even handedly to all, with some requests granted when the material was a breach of twitter TOS, and denying others when it wasn't.

FlyGuy said:
Everything you posted proves speech is not illegal and that it's the conjunction with an act that allows for prosecution.
Click to expand...

In my scenario, you would be in court with me despite doing nothing but verbally agreeing to be part of a future criminal act. If I committed the furthering act by purchasing supplies necessary to commit the crime later, you would still be involved in the conspiracy. These laws were written largely to address organized crime bosses who don't actually get their hands dirty but were definitely involved in the planning and approval of certain acts.

1729627684087.png

Here's some light reading, all of the exceptions to speech in the US.

en.wikipedia.org

United States free speech exceptions - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

FlyGuy said:
It's not my fault you don't understand Orwellian. Can't help you there.
Click to expand...

Eh, "Orwellian" is a signficantly deeper example of base authoritarianism, and requires some additional features like double speak, erasing/rewriting history, among other things.

If you want to consider my opinions on free speech authoritarian, have at it. I support the existing limitations of speech common in western democracies for the most part. Calling that Orwellian is hilarious cry baby bullshit though.

FlyGuy said:
Completely disagree. There are many examples of just that even if you do not see it as overt since the ones implementing them agree with your worldview.
Click to expand...
Examples such as?
 
WeHaveMoreCupsThanYou said:
Kamala should have named Obama as her running mate, just for the triggers.
Click to expand...
And, it is legal too.

Section 1​

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term

He could have ran as VP, as the amendment only covers the election of President.
 
Last edited:
MindzEye said:
It's the selective manner in what he wrote, which didn't support the narrative he was attempting to present (one in which the Democrats were in collusion with Twitter to censor stories unfavourable to them). Instead, when more information came to light it pretty clearly showed that

- Twitter was attempting to navigate some internal policies regarding hacked & leaked materials
- There was a pretty even divide among team members in charge of enforcing this regarding it, but very temporarily they decided to follow the existing policy before the policy got rewritten at the direction of Jack.
- Contact between that twitter team and both political parties was common, same with between them and both the Trump admin and later the Biden admin, with all of the above requesting takedowns of certain materials (Hunter's cock photos, for instance, was one of the requests the Biden admin made). Twitter appears to have applied their policies even handedly to all, with some requests granted when the material was a breach of twitter TOS, and denying others when it wasn't.



In my scenario, you would be in court with me despite doing nothing but verbally agreeing to be part of a future criminal act. If I committed the furthering act by purchasing supplies necessary to commit the crime later, you would still be involved in the conspiracy. These laws were written largely to address organized crime bosses who don't actually get their hands dirty but were definitely involved in the planning and approval of certain acts.

View attachment 22457

Here's some light reading, all of the exceptions to speech in the US.

en.wikipedia.org

United States free speech exceptions - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org



Eh, "Orwellian" is a signficantly deeper example of base authoritarianism, and requires some additional features like double speak, erasing/rewriting history, among other things.

If you want to consider my opinions on free speech authoritarian, have at it. I support the existing limitations of speech common in western democracies for the most part. Calling that Orwellian is hilarious cry baby bullshit though.


Examples such as?
Click to expand...
Completely miss the point. Sean Edgett went from the FBI to twitter's 2nd in command in the legal department. Coincidentally, after being found out and fired by Musk, he is now the legal chief and secretary at Match Group, which owns dating apps like Tinder and OkCupid. Sounds like another place the FBI could want some influence in as well, eh?

The white house had a formal process to influence censoring of not only topics but individual accounts. The federal government was, through their influence at the company, silencing Americans who spoke out against them or their policies. Most notably when human rights were violated during covid via OSHA. Idc if you agree with the 'means to an end' argument, that's never acceptable.

Ok, so nothing was illegal until an act was committed, like I said.

Example being the recent protests in the UK where police were going door to door over facebook comments they didn't like. If you want more examples just take a time machine back to 2020.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top