politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Uh, calling for violence is NOT protected under the first amendment, so you can fuck right off with that.
"It is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting' words – those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."
Wait. This means that art with lewd, obscene, or profane content is not protected?
And exactly what is "lewd, obscene, or profane" is not actually defined in the law.
Surely that's never been abused in the past. No, sir.
Republicans can't read.
Only speech.
I wouldn't call that speech. That implies some thought went behind it. More like yapping and blabbering.
Write is not speech!
But money is
They certainly won't, in any case. Just look at how they talk about the Constitution, history, religion...
For people who seem to consistently break the law, you'd think they would want to know what their rights actually are.
In Terminiello v. Chicago (1949), the Supreme Court narrowed the scope of what constitutes fighting words. The Court found that words which produce a clear and present danger are unprotected (and are considering fighting words), but words which invite dispute and even cause unrest are protected (and are not considered fighting words).
sure, but this guy is not even being charged with anything. we are talking about a warning.
He feels threatened, though. That violates his NAP.
If these were black kids playing across the street rather than armed FBI agents pounding on his door, he likely would have tried to gun them down already.
I mean if Trump's speech for Jan 6 didn't count...
Trump was actually arrested for that though.
Although it was for more than just the speech.
Nor should he be. What he said was most likely "protected" speech.
but very close to not being protected, hence the warning.