POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

[burd]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

The difference between "I wish you would die" and "I'm going to come to your town and kill you."

OK. Which would fit the legal definition of assault.

A different hypothetical. How about a group of muslims handing out flyers in Brooklyn advocating success of ISIS in killing U.S. soldiers in Syria? Should they be prohibited from doing it, physically opposed, allowed to continue exercising their speech?

 

[The Rube]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Where does "action" cross the line, and does that line change depending on the offensive views of the actor?

As I understand it, action includes performing harmful actions, or inciting harmful actions in a direct manner.

Simply chanting "We hate Jews" is protected, for example. Burning crosses, directly saying "I will harm [minority]" is not protected.

Recently a senator from MO was quoted as "I hope Trump is assassinated." Not a crime. It was not a direct threat to the president, nor did she say SHE was going to assassinate the president.

 

[Jimjamesak]

Where does "action" cross the line, and does that line change depending on the offensive views of the actor?

Advocate the belief that you are superior based on the color of your skin and that all other people should be subjugated based on that.

Basically anything that resembles "I am a white supremacist." It's a clean and simple line really.

 

[The Rube]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Advocate the belief that you are superior based on the color of your skin and that all other people should be subjugated based on that.

Basically anything that resembles "I am a white supremacist." It's a clean and simple line really.

Nope. You can spout off that belief all you want. I don't agree with it, but you can say it.

 

[Jimjamesak]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Nope. You can spout off that belief all you want. I don't agree with it, but you can say it.

The mere expression of that thought is a threat. You can say it, but there will be consequences.

 

[burd]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Advocate the belief that you are superior based on the color of your skin and that all other people should be subjugated based on that.

Basically anything that resembles "I am a white supremacist." It's a clean and simple line really.

It's not clean and simple at all, unless this is limited to skin color only and not gender, ethnicity, or religion, to name a few.

 

[The Rube]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

The mere expression of that thought is a threat. You can say it, but there will be consequences.

Yes, legally you can counter that thought/speech with non-violent actions. Consequences does not equal violence all the time.

 

[burd]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

The mere expression of that thought is a threat. You can say it, but there will be consequences.

The mere expression of that thought is not as much a threat as the notion that government could suppress it.

 

[The Rube]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

The mere expression of that thought is not as much a threat as the notion that government could suppress it.

Correct.

 

[Jimjamesak]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

The mere expression of that thought is not as much a threat as the notion that government could suppress it.

I'm not talking government suppressing it. I'm talking about people suppressing it.

 

[Jimjamesak]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Yes, legally you can counter that thought/speech with non-violent actions. Consequences does not equal violence all the time.

But sometimes it is a necessity.

 

[burd]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

I'm not talking government suppressing it. I'm talking about people suppressing it.

The threat of harm is so great that people are justified in using violence to oppose it, but a city cannot prevent it from happening in the first place?

 

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Again, how many George Washington statues in the streets of London?

I thought maybe this was rhetorical before, but in any case, there's a very famous statue of George Washington in Trafalgar Square. Legend has it that American soil was shipped over and placed beneath it upon it's installation, as Washington had sworn never again to set foot on English soil.


Since I was thinking of it, IIRC, there are six US presidents memorialized in London with statues. Besides Washington, there's monuments for Lincoln, FDR, Ike, JFK, and Reagan.

 

[The Rube]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

But sometimes it is a necessity.

I disagree. Very much a hard pass on this train of thought.

 

[Jimjamesak]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

The threat of harm is so great that people are justified in using violence to oppose it, but a city cannot prevent it from happening in the first place?

The sad reality of a society that values free speech.

 

[The Rube]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

The sad reality of a society that values free speech.

I wouldn't want to live in a country that limits free speech. I really wouldn't.

 

[burd]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

I have a feeling it helps to be from Alaska or Montana to fully appreciate jimjames' take on this. I'm not being sarcastic.

 

[The Rube]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

I have a feeling it helps to be from Alaska or Montana to fully appreciate jimjames' take on this. I'm not being sarcastic.

I'm sure it would shape an opinion but arguing against free speech? That is..........I don't know how else to say it, really..............quite laughable if you believe in what this country stands for.

We can say what we want to say and many other countries yearn for that right. Some might DIE for that right. And some in this country want to do away with it. I shake my head at that.

 

[Kepler]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

I'm sure it would shape an opinion but arguing against free speech? That is..........I don't know how else to say it, really..............quite laughable if you believe in what this country stands for.

We can say what we want to say and many other countries yearn for that right. Some might DIE for that right. And some in this country want to do away with it. I shake my head at that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

 

[The Rube]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

A good friend just brought up this point: what if Trump could regulate what we could say? Does that change your tune?