He might still be there physically, but he won’t have a voice.
7 Likes
Most religious content is harmless. If it ventures into the hate area then that is the point where it needs to be silenced. Religion is a point of view. You don’t believe that people should be banned from expressing their views so why ban religious posts?
Because it spreads hate and fundamentalism is on the rise, after all, warts and all religion isn’t a pick and mix of what you like and what you don’t, its black and white on observance.
Answer the question Baz.
You want to ban quotes from the Bible?
No, I’d like a disclaimer that the blble, koran and the torah aren’t verifiable sources so aren’t proven as fact.
Religion is an experience, a deeply personal one but its just that, personal.
This is what Baz is fighting for.
This is what he demands be allowed to be promoted as free speech - INCITEMENT
(Baz incitement to commit murder that results in murder is NOT Free Speech.
End.
Of.
Debate
For everyone else - this should scare the shit out of us all.
1 Like
For @BTripz
The video was posted there before the site was de-platformed earlier this week, but not before one hacker managed to legally download 99.9% of the site’s entire contents by exploiting a weakness in the site’s coding to index and download all public posts.
That should be banned, why would I disagree? Trump wasn’t there though, how can it be proven he did that? Those are two of my points, how will Trump be charged and how will it be proved?
Actual harm is totally and utterly different to subtle words and divisive words, sure they can lead to this but does mean we ban everything that could possibly lead to this?
No protests ever again then, it’ll shit down debate.
No overturn in Poland at their womens reproductive laws etc etc.
And I refute that totally, you’ve misrepresented me on that.
Subtle is a word you can never apply to Trump. This was more than encouraging a protest. Both Trump and the earlier speakers were clearly whipping the mob up to "fight’ and stop a legislative process. Trump wasn’t physically with them but his words emphasised that his was with them in spirit and supporting them.
There’s loads of other evidence. The way he was watching on TV and ignoring pleas for him to put out a statement and call in the National Guard, for a start.
And his rhetoric and lies since the election have all been building up to this. From reports, he’s still seething that it didn’t ultimately work.
2 Likes
Instigating doesn’t abdicate responsibility for his involvement but as I have always said, what is he charged with and can those charges be proved?
Where do you draw the line with this?
And does this lead us into a tit for tat indignation war of being offended that get us further from where we are now.
Incitement to commit a crime is criminal, whether or not it results in a crime being committed, and is not protected by the First Amendment.
The burden of evidence would be whether Trump’s words, and those of the other speakers, were encouraging peaceful protest or inciting action that went beyond that and was criminal. I think saying “fight” and “you have to stop them” both imply more than protest.
2 Likes
That is true but what crime has Trump committed and what would he be charged with and could said charge be proved?
If the charges fail he’ll be even more powerful than now.
As I said, I think parts of his speech could be interpreted as incitement to commit illegal acts. He could certainly be charged with that, but I agree proving it wouldn’t be straightforward.
He has been “charged” that is what impeachment is effectively.
He will next stand “trial” in the Senate
Yes there is a political angle to that but it is happening.
Meanwhile the FBI & others continue to gather evidence.
Latest allegations are that senior Trump loyal Republicans gave guided tours to some of those charged with breaching the Capitol 24 hours before the event.
Do people honestly believe inciting revolution (to the EXACT US Legal definition of the term) is free speech?
Or “its OK if you are the ruling party” should apply?
It would be basically impossible and also counter productive (I said this a week ago), this is being done so to put pressure on him and his aides so he doesn’t stand again, that will quell some fire but his kids will run and he’ll be the puppet master, the only true and fair option is to expel him but he’ll take too many votes with him and give the democrats another 4 years after this, politics is a shithouse game, we’ll get tears and how this and that will change.
It won’t fuck all changes other than one wants to keep power and someone else wants it.
His kids might well run but that doesn’t mean that they have his ability to connect with a mindless mass as he does. He has a certain kind of crazy that only works for him.
1 Like
Trump will be a conduit, political dynasties have done it for centuries.