Re: The 1st Amendment Apparently Doesn't Exist in New York Either

On 5/2/24 1:42 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <v106rl$3stcm$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
>

On 5/1/24 1:05 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <v0tika$370i3$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
>

On 4/30/24 2:51 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 30, 2024 at 6:17:34 AM PDT, "FPP" <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>

On 4/30/24 5:13 AM, BTR1701 wrote:

In the U.S., politicians have demanded Internet censorship and have
even engaged in it themselves. For example, the Supreme Court will soon
hear Missouri v. Biden, a case in which the federal government coerced
social media platforms to censor content it disagreed with-- even if
the content was true.
Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law professor at George Washington
University and free speech advocate who has written extensively on the
issues of censorship and limitations on speech, has cautioned the U.S.
against adopting European censorship laws that allow governments to
stop people from saying things that governments oppose. Despite what
many think, "hate speech", which is subjective, is protected both by
the Constitution and by Supreme Court precedent.
He wrote:
"There have been calls to ban hate speech for years. Even former
journalist and Obama State Department official Richard Stengel has
insisted that while "the 1st Amendment protects 'the thought that we
hate'... it should not protect hateful speech that can cause violence
by one group against another. In an age when everyone has a megaphone,
that seems like a design flaw."
Actually, it was not a design flaw but the very essence of the Framers'
plan for a free society.
The 1st Amendment does not distinguish between types of speech, clearly
stating: 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceablyto assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of
grievances.'"
He cited Brandenburg v. Ohio, a 1969 case involving "violent speech",
wherein the Supreme Court struck down an Ohio law prohibiting public
speech that was deemed as promoting illegal conduct, specifically
ruling for the right of the Ku Klux Klan to speak out, even though
it is a hateful organization."
That ruling led to National Socialist Party of America v. Village of
Skokie in 1977, where the Court unanimously ruled that the city
government could not constitutionally deny a permit for the American
Nazi Party to hold a march in the city streets, even in a city
populated heavily by Holocaust survivors.
Turley also noted that in the 2011 case of RAV v. City of St. Paul,
the Court struck down a ban on any symbol that 'arouses anger, alarm
or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion
or gender, and in Snyder v. Phelps, also in 2011, the Court said
that "the hateful protests of Westboro Baptist Church were protected".

>

Jonathan Turley? Do better. You're a better lawyer than Jonathan
Turley... and what does that say?

>
More of Effa's standard 'blame the messenger' dodge.
>
Notice he doesn't (and can't) refute the fact that the Supreme Court
cases cited by Turley actually exist and the rulings are what they are,
so he just attacks the person citing them. This is one of the classic
rhetorical and logical fallacies, one Effa has wholeheartedly embraced
because he thinks it allows him to win on Usenet on any given day.

>

Turley is an idiot. And he reads a calendar about as well as YOU read
English.

>
More of Effa's standard 'blame the messenger' dodge.
>
Notice he doesn't (and can't) refute the fact that the Supreme Court
cases cited by Turley actually exist and the rulings are what they are,
so he just attacks the person citing them. This is one of the classic
rhetorical and logical fallacies, one Effa has wholeheartedly embraced
because he thinks it allows him to win on Usenet on any given day.
>

Turley is like every MAGA. A bullshitter and a clown.
>
He made a learned legal argument that Biden was guilty when he wasn't
even in office. That's bush league.

>
And here Effa continues to employ his typical 'blame the messenger'
dodge rather than address the substance of the matter asserted.
>
Notice that he doesn't (and can't) refute the fact that the Supreme
Court cases cited by Turley actually exist and the rulings are what they
are, so he just attacks the person citing them. This is one of the
classic rhetorical and logical fallacies, one Effa has wholeheartedly
embraced because he thinks it allows him to win on Usenet on any given
day.
>

 This is the substance of the matter.  Turley is a MAGA liar.
Hey, here's a legal axiom... let me know if you've ever heard it, counselor.
 

falsus in uno doctrine
The falsus in uno doctrine is a principle that says if a witness lies about one important thing, then the jury can assume that everything they say is a lie. It means that if the jury thinks a witness is intentionally deceitful, they can ignore everything that witness says.

 Look it up.  Turley is a liar in a lot more than one thing.  Want me to list a few, or do you prefer to run away before I do it?
 

Turley incorrectly claimed that DOJ special counsel Jack Smith was indicting Trump for misinformation. He stated that Trump is “being indicted for spreading lies. That's what the indictment says over and over again, and they insist that he knew they were lies.” [Fox News, The Story with Martha MacCallum, 8/3/23]

 

Turley stated Trump is “being charged with lying” and argued the indictment raises “free speech concerns.” He stated, “There are legitimate free speech concerns raised by these charges. Essentially he's being charged with lying and the government is saying you can make false statements in an election, but not if you know that they're false. But they don't really establish that he knew that they were false, even if that theory is correct.” [Fox News, America Reports, 8/3/23]

 

Turley argued that Trump is protected from charges in the January 6 indictment because of the First Amendment. He claimed, “It does not appear that this was motivated by new evidence, and in order to get a conviction, he [Smith] will have to use material that, in my view, is clearly protected by the First Amendment.” [Fox News, Special Report with Bret Baier, 8/1/23]

 

Turley floated the idea that indicting Trump and penalizing him over his actions on January 6 would “criminalize false political speech.” He claimed, “It's unlikely he [Trump] will get a trial put in front of the Florida trial, but they very well could help him out in moving these issues to the appellate court and asking them is this the criminalization of disinformation? Are you about to criminalize false political speech? Because in the past, the Supreme Court has been extremely skeptical of laws that attempt to do that.” [Fox News, Your World with Neil Cavuto, 8/3/23]

 

Turley pushed the notion that indicting Trump would be a “slippery slope” to criminalizing incorrect speech. He stated, “If you start to criminalize issues like that, you find yourself on a slippery slope where the Department of Justice can arrest politicians for not accepting what they deem the evident truth.“ [Fox News, The Story with Martha MacCallum, 8/2/23]

 

Turley claimed that the indictment and upcoming trial of Trump is a “free speech killing case.” He said, “If free speech defines us as a nation, this is a free speech killing case, and we need to deal with those implications.” [Fox News, America Reports, 8/2/23]

 

On Fox host Brian Kilmeade’s radio show, Turley accused Smith of inventing new law to go after Trump and attacking the First Amendment. Turley stated, “Smith is trying to create new law here, and he doesn't cite any new evidence. That should disturb people. There's got to be some point where you say enough -- when you start to take a hatchet to the First Amendment in this quest to nail Trump.” [Fox Radio, Brian Kilmeade Show, 8/2/23]

   So, basically... fuck Turley, and fuck you too.  He's a Fox News Suck-ass.