All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[Tami]

Freedom of speech has always been an interesting topic for debate. Most people would agree that it doesn’t allow for someone shouting Fire! in a crowded theater, but somehow it’s allowed for a public figure with major influence to claim the 2020 election was rigged. In my opinion the rule should be that if that person or anyone with public influence or a major platform can’t submit actual legal proof of such an inflammatory claim they should be legally compelled to shut the f**k up or face federal charges.
But that’s just me.

Public Figures and Government Leaders should be held accountable for their actions, and words are actions if they cause criminal negligence or wide spread harm. This is an area where the US is failing.

[Jack Dracula]

Public Figures and Government Leaders should be held accountable for their actions, and words are actions if they cause criminal negligence or wide spread harm. This is an area where the US is failing.

As evidenced by a former President and Representatives still walking free after inciting a riot where people were killed and government property was destroyed and stolen.

[Tami]

Five myths about the filibuster

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has thrown down the gauntlet, saying he will move to change Senate rules by Jan. 17 if Republicans continue to block the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. Because of the filibuster, neither can be enacted without 60 votes in the Senate — and no Republican backs both bills, though all 50 Democrats do. Supporters of the status quo have their reasons, many of them caught up in myths about the history of the Constitution and the Senate’s role.

[Gray Lensman]

Freedom of speech has always been an interesting topic for debate. Most people would agree that it doesn’t allow for someone shouting Fire! in a crowded theater, but somehow it’s allowed for a public figure with major influence to claim the 2020 election was rigged. In my opinion the rule should be that if that person or anyone with public influence or a major platform can’t submit actual legal proof of such an inflammatory claim they should be legally compelled to shut the f**k up or face federal charges.
But that’s just me.

Interestingly enough, the 'Free speech doesn't let you yell fire in a crowded theater' line is actually from one of the worst SCOTUS decisions in history, one upholding the speech censorship laws passed under.....wait for it....Woodrow Wilson.

The case is question was United States v Schneck, where the chairman of the Socialist Party was convicted under the Espionage Act for distributing a pamphlet opposing the draft. It didn't call for violence, just peaceful protest and a refusal to submit to intimidation . The pamphlet didn't even call for civil disobedience, but under the Espionage Act even the slightest criticism of the government became criminalized.

The ruling was overturned in 1969 with Brandenburg v Ohio.

[worstblogever]

Speaking of the GOP being too lenient about fascism or Nazism, an Indiana State Senator from the party is arguing history teachers should be "impartial", including in those discussions.


Congressman Adam Kinzinger is lamenting the "truth crisis" in the GOP.

And in the hypocrisy department, another elected Republican has been accused of raping a minor, Michigan state legislator Lee Chatfield. The reported assaults began when the victim was 15, and continued for 11 years, as she was afraid to speak out because Chatfield is the son of the church pastor. He successfully won a GOP primary for his seat by attacking an opponent for being too LGBTQ friendly as a disqualifying moral reason. Meanwhile, he's apparently a sexual predator. He's admitting to having affairs, denies his victim wasn't giving consent. Which, if she was 15 when this started, she legally could not consent.

[numberthirty]

Freedom of speech has always been an interesting topic for debate. Most people would agree that it doesn’t allow for someone shouting Fire! in a crowded theater, but somehow it’s allowed for a public figure with major influence to claim the 2020 election was rigged. In my opinion the rule should be that if that person or anyone with public influence or a major platform can’t submit actual legal proof of such an inflammatory claim they should be legally compelled to shut the f**k up or face federal charges.
But that’s just me.

Once someone worse than George W. has that arrow in the quiver?

All Hell breaks loose.

Thanks, but "No Thanks..."

[Amadeus Arkham]

Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Has Tested Positive For Covid-19

I wish her a speedy recovery.

[Tami]

Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Has Tested Positive For Covid-19

I wish her a speedy recovery.

It seems to be running through both chambers. I suspect that one or more members of Congress were carriers and exposed the others to it.

[Jack Dracula]

Interestingly enough, the 'Free speech doesn't let you yell fire in a crowded theater' line is actually from one of the worst SCOTUS decisions in history, one upholding the speech censorship laws passed under.....wait for it....Woodrow Wilson.

The case is question was United States v Schneck, where the chairman of the Socialist Party was convicted under the Espionage Act for distributing a pamphlet opposing the draft. It didn't call for violence, just peaceful protest and a refusal to submit to intimidation . The pamphlet didn't even call for civil disobedience, but under the Espionage Act even the slightest criticism of the government became criminalized.

The ruling was overturned in 1969 with Brandenburg v Ohio.

Ugh, I might have hesitated to use the reference had I known the origin.
Despite that, it still seems relevant given the current state of politics.
It is possible the pendulum swung too far the other way as it commonly will?
On the face of it, and taking the current situation into account, I’d think we need an adjustment of the rules regarding free speech.
Don’t anyone start with the slippery blah-blah arguments. We as a society are perfectly capable of establishing clear limits without infringing on reasonable criticism of the status quo. We do have the wisdom of hindsight as a guide if we choose to use it.

[Malvolio]

Speaking of the GOP being too lenient about fascism or Nazism, an Indiana State Senator from the party is arguing history teachers should be "impartial", including in those discussions.


Congressman Adam Kinzinger is lamenting the "truth crisis" in the GOP.

And in the hypocrisy department, another elected Republican has been accused of raping a minor, Michigan state legislator Lee Chatfield. The reported assaults began when the victim was 15, and continued for 11 years, as she was afraid to speak out because Chatfield is the son of the church pastor. He successfully won a GOP primary for his seat by attacking an opponent for being too LGBTQ friendly as a disqualifying moral reason. Meanwhile, he's apparently a sexual predator. He's admitting to having affairs, denies his victim wasn't giving consent. Which, if she was 15 when this started, she legally could not consent.

The Indiana State Senator apologized, but of course it was one of those mealy mouthed "If anyone was offended..." apologies.

[Jack Dracula]

Once someone worse than George W. has that arrow in the quiver?

All Hell breaks loose.

Thanks, but "No Thanks..."

I understand your point, but it’s just as, if not more damaging to let extremely influential people preach lies in an effort to overturn an election.
If our systems are working properly, that sort of person should not be elected. Part of the reason the system doesn’t work is because people with influence are able to flat out lie to the public without repercussions.

[worstblogever]

The Indiana State Senator apologized, but of course it was one of those mealy mouthed "If anyone was offended..." apologies.

Effectively, "Sorry you all panicked when I said we needed to be neutral on the Nazis."

[AnakinFlair]

So, one of the Capital rioters recently asked a judge for permission to travel to Jamaica to meet the family of a girl he's been involved with for over a year. This time, the judge did the right thing and said no.

[numberthirty]

I understand your point, but it’s just as, if not more damaging to let extremely influential people preach lies in an effort to overturn an election.
If our systems are working properly, that sort of person should not be elected. Part of the reason the system doesn’t work is because people with influence are able to flat out lie to the public without repercussions.

Politely, I'll just have to disagree there.

Doing away with the filibuster on judges at the Federal level caused a lot of problems because there wasn't a "When The Tables Have Turned..." plan thought out through about "Plan D..."

Way too many versions of that where a Federal charge as a weapon will absolutely do more damage than lies that can be countered without having to charge someone to do so.

Never mind that anyone being charged can just whip out the old "I Had To Fold Because They Are Targeting Me..."

Nothing really changes, and folks who would have just have one more reason to buy into the lie.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

It seems to be running through both chambers. I suspect that one or more Qpublican members of Congress were carriers and exposed the others to it.

Fixed it for you.