Royale with Cheese Posted September 18 Posted September 18 1 minute ago, Roundybout said: Sure, bet it goes better than Trump’s lawsuit against the NYT. I'm sure that's going to go over well when he told the audience a lie. The guy mislead an audience. The guys own parents and friends said he was a left extremist. He specifically stated he was against everything Charlie Kirk. And Kimmel told millions upon millions that this kid was MAGA. ABC has every right to fire this guy for that. That is intentionally misleading the public and you're in the spotlight. There will be no lawsuit.
nedboy7 Posted September 18 Posted September 18 Can courts prohibit offensive speech that causes listeners distress? Here again, the Supreme Court has said “no.” Courts would not stop a planned march by the American Nazi Party in Skokie, Ill., in 1977, though it would have been deeply distressing to the many Holocaust survivors who lived there. In 2011, by an 8-to-1 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protected the Westboro Baptist Church, which protested at military funerals with signs bearing messages like “America is Doomed” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers.” “Speech is powerful,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain.” But under the First Amendment, he went on, “we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker.” Instead, the national commitment to free speech, he said, required protection of “even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.”
Roundybout Posted September 18 Posted September 18 1 minute ago, Royale with Cheese said: I'm sure that's going to go over well when he told the audience a lie. The guy mislead an audience. The guys own parents and friends said he was a left extremist. He specifically stated he was against everything Charlie Kirk. And Kimmel told millions upon millions that this kid was MAGA. ABC has every right to fire this guy for that. That is intentionally misleading the public and you're in the spotlight. There will be no lawsuit. Trump does this every single day with zero repercussion so I’m not sure why there’s an exception here. His parents never said he was a “left extremist,” at most they said his politics were different than the families.
Royale with Cheese Posted September 18 Posted September 18 2 minutes ago, Roundybout said: Same thing that won in 2020 - an alternative that wasn’t Trump. Biden/harris ran one of the worst campaigns ever. That didn't answer my question. Give me a name. So you're saying that this person is going to flip millions of voters? Right now the Dems approval rating is between 8%-20% lol. Even CNN and WSJ is reporting its awful over there. Give me a name who is going to rise the Dems out of the ashes.
nedboy7 Posted September 18 Posted September 18 What about inciting violence? The First Amendment does not protect incitement, but the Supreme Court has defined that term quite narrowly, requiring a likelihood of imminent violence. Mere advocacy of violence, terrorism or the overthrow of the government is not enough; the words must be meant to and be likely to produce violence or lawlessness right away. In 1969, in Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court unanimously overturned the conviction of a leader of a Ku Klux Klan group under an Ohio statute that banned the advocacy of terrorism. The Klan leader, Clarence Brandenburg, had urged his followers at a rally to “send the Jews back to Israel” and to “bury” Black people, using a racial slur. He also said they should consider “revengeance” against politicians and judges who were unsympathetic to white people. Only Klan members and journalists were present. Because Mr. Brandenburg’s words fell short of calling for immediate violence in a setting where such violence was likely, the Supreme Court ruled that he could not be prosecuted for incitement. Mr. Trump has been the beneficiary of that ruling. When he was running for president in 2016, he pointed to some protesters at one of his rallies and told the crowd to “get ’em out of here.” The protesters, who said they were then viciously assaulted, sued him for inciting a riot. Mr. Trump won the suit. A federal appeals court, referring to Brandenburg, ruled that his exhortation was protected by the First Amendment. “In the ears of some supporters, Trump’s words may have had a tendency to elicit a physical response, in the event a disruptive protester refused to leave,” Judge David W. McKeague wrote for the majority, “but they did not specifically advocate such a response.”
Roundybout Posted September 18 Posted September 18 Just now, Royale with Cheese said: That didn't answer my question. Give me a name. So you're saying that this person is going to flip millions of voters? Right now the Dems approval rating is between 8%-20% lol. Even CNN and WSJ is reporting its awful over there. Give me a name who is going to rise the Dems out of the ashes. Pritzger. Shapiro. A white man on center-left. But please tell me how this is normal and good.
Royale with Cheese Posted September 18 Posted September 18 Just now, Roundybout said: Trump does this every single day with zero repercussion so I’m not sure why there’s an exception here. His parents never said he was a “left extremist,” at most they said his politics were different than the families. Nope. She didn't just say had different politics. That's what she said at most? Once a college scholarship recipient with a promising future, Robinson had "become more political," leaning left and supporting "pro-gay and trans rights," his mother said, according to court documents. She also recounted heated arguments between Robinson and his father, who held sharply different views and regularly sparred over their competing ideologies.
Big Blitz Posted September 18 Posted September 18 The red line was the public assassination at a free speech open debate forum for the whole world to see. Thanks for acknowledging these ghouls have always been nothing but Democrat surrogates on the public airwaves.
Royale with Cheese Posted September 18 Posted September 18 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Roundybout said: Pritzger. Shapiro. A white man on center-left. But please tell me how this is normal and good. He lied to the audience. He is a bad look on the company. Show me the lawsuits. They should be coming soon right? LOL, you are fighting an uphill battle. The Democrats will probably lose in the biggest landslide in political history. Your approval rating was low before the Kirk assassination. It's going to be lower. 8 minutes ago, Roundybout said: Trump does this every single day with zero repercussion so I’m not sure why there’s an exception here. His parents never said he was a “left extremist,” at most they said his politics were different than the families. And no, Trump doesn't. Edited September 18 by Royale with Cheese
SCBills Posted September 18 Posted September 18 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Roundybout said: Pritzger. Shapiro. A white man on center-left. Shapiro is the easy answer of all the choices Dems have, but he does have some skeletons in the form of a murder cover-up allegation and I honestly don’t think the far left (growing percentage of the Democrat Party) or most people under 30 will vote for a Jew. Edited September 18 by SCBills 1 1
aristocrat Posted September 18 Posted September 18 The left wanted to turn down the temperature. Kimmel could have been responsible and instead he decided to lie which could result in more assassins coming up. This ***** is getting bad. Instead of toning down jimmy leveled uo 1 1
Royale with Cheese Posted September 18 Posted September 18 10 minutes ago, nedboy7 said: What about inciting violence? The First Amendment does not protect incitement, but the Supreme Court has defined that term quite narrowly, requiring a likelihood of imminent violence. Mere advocacy of violence, terrorism or the overthrow of the government is not enough; the words must be meant to and be likely to produce violence or lawlessness right away. In 1969, in Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court unanimously overturned the conviction of a leader of a Ku Klux Klan group under an Ohio statute that banned the advocacy of terrorism. The Klan leader, Clarence Brandenburg, had urged his followers at a rally to “send the Jews back to Israel” and to “bury” Black people, using a racial slur. He also said they should consider “revengeance” against politicians and judges who were unsympathetic to white people. Only Klan members and journalists were present. Because Mr. Brandenburg’s words fell short of calling for immediate violence in a setting where such violence was likely, the Supreme Court ruled that he could not be prosecuted for incitement. Mr. Trump has been the beneficiary of that ruling. When he was running for president in 2016, he pointed to some protesters at one of his rallies and told the crowd to “get ’em out of here.” The protesters, who said they were then viciously assaulted, sued him for inciting a riot. Mr. Trump won the suit. A federal appeals court, referring to Brandenburg, ruled that his exhortation was protected by the First Amendment. “In the ears of some supporters, Trump’s words may have had a tendency to elicit a physical response, in the event a disruptive protester refused to leave,” Judge David W. McKeague wrote for the majority, “but they did not specifically advocate such a response.” I explained this a few pages ago. This doesn't change anything.
Roundybout Posted September 18 Posted September 18 2 minutes ago, SCBills said: Shapiro is the easy answer of all the choices Dems have, but he does have some skeletons in the form of a murder cover-up allegation and I honestly don’t think the far left (growing percentage of the Democrat Party) will vote for a Jew. The Dems need to learn to simply ignore the Jill Stein crowd. They aren’t voting Democrat anyways.
Big Blitz Posted September 18 Posted September 18 Someone find me the clip of these ****ing losers twisting themselves into a similar pretzel to defend something Trump said that was definitely taken out of context - unlike Kimmels which were just straight up lies
Roundybout Posted September 18 Posted September 18 5 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said: Nope. She didn't just say had different politics. That's what she said at most? Once a college scholarship recipient with a promising future, Robinson had "become more political," leaning left and supporting "pro-gay and trans rights," his mother said, according to court documents. She also recounted heated arguments between Robinson and his father, who held sharply different views and regularly sparred over their competing ideologies. Being “pro-gay” is a very moderate position lmao Its not like she said he was an anarcho-communist Just now, Big Blitz said: Someone find me the clip of these ****ing losers twisting themselves into a similar pretzel to defend something Trump said that was definitely taken out of context - unlike Kimmels which were just straight up lies
Big Blitz Posted September 18 Posted September 18 1 minute ago, aristocrat said: The left wanted to turn down the temperature. Kimmel could have been responsible and instead he decided to lie which could result in more assassins coming up. This ***** is getting bad. Instead of toning down jimmy leveled uo I’ve been saying this since September 10 and I think B-Man had the same thought. There is no going back. The left has no clue what has happened here and the ramifications. It is being UNDERSTATED how bad this is. And it’s ALL on them. Because they’re the only ones that can stop it. Which they won’t do. It will end their party. 1
JDHillFan Posted September 18 Posted September 18 1 minute ago, Roundybout said: The Dems need to learn to simply ignore the Jill Stein crowd. They aren’t voting Democrat anyways. They certainly seem to be moving in a more moderate direction, don’t you think? The historically low approval numbers should start coming up any time now. 🤦🏻🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♂️
Recommended Posts