When you're more or less encouraging a coup, the "fire in a crowded theater" analogy couldn't be more applicable.
Why not use more "every day" examples?
* I can't say I earned $0 last year --> tax fraud
* I can't say "fuck you" to a judge --> contempt of court
* I can't say my software will make you pretty --> advertising fraud
* I can't say you robbed me yesterday --> libel
I know this is a very European attitude, and always gets Americans worked up, but to me as a Dutch / French person, it seems obvious that free speech is not absolute. Just like the right to bear arms does not mean that I can own any type of military weapon.
> it seems obvious that free speech is not absolute
We agree on this, but disagree on where to draw the line. Limiting free speech is an endorsement of the government limiting what I am legally permitted to see, read, and hear. I am unwilling to let the government make that determination on my behalf.
> Just like the right to bear arms does not mean that I can own any type of military weapon.
Private citizens (presumably including the founding fathers) actually used to own canons before the creation of a permanent, federal army!
As an American, I know that even in the US, free speech is not absolute, nor has it ever been.
And all the things you mention are, in context, crimes here in the US as well.
One of the big differences in the US (not sure about France/The Netherlands), but in the UK it's much easier to prove libel/defamation than it is here.
I actually could say you robbed me yesterday, but if I didn't file a police report alleging that, it would be difficult for you to successfully sue me over it. Because you would have to prove that I knowingly did so and not only intended to cause injury, I actually did cause injury.
However, if I filed a false police report, I could be prosecuted for that -- and if you suffered some injury because I did (arrest/imprisonment, loss of job, etc.), you could likely win a libel/defamation lawsuit.
If there are people who tell you otherwise, they're either ignorant/uninformed or just lying.
https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...
How is this different from saying "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character" is not a quote you should use if you are opposed to the government granting special benefits and privileges to blacks in preference to whites, because that was an idea that Martin Luther King supported?
Can an idea have any value independently of the cause someone once used it to support?
I'm thinking, but all I can see is an apparently sincere effort to make the argument that Hitler Ate Sugar ( https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HitlerAteSugar ).
So tell me: what does that mean?
Edit: Furthermore, would suspensions and bans ALSO apply to anarchists and revolutionaries? We know the answer is 'no'. It's clear to me Facebook wanted to drop Trump for a long time and did not do so for fear of repercussions. Now that there will be a new administration it is safe for them to do it.
And so if I walk into a bank and demand money, but I don't get any, it's not a bank robbery?
That's an interesting legal angle.
What happened was a failure of adequate planning and execution by the police to control an unruly crowd.
I think the partisanship is what's really driving people like this. The Trump/Russia stuff was investigated, why not investigate election fraud too?
- The Trump/Russia situation resulted in the senate agreeing that Russia did collude with members of the Trump campaign in support of Trump. [1]
- Investigations into the voter fraud and election tampering allegations in favor of Biden have resulted in 61 failed lawsuits in state courts on the basis of "no evidence." [2]
- The supreme court has rejected every lawsuit brought to it on the basis of "no evidence." [3]
While the Russia investigation lead to the arrest of nearly every 2016 Trump campaign manager, the allegations of voter fraud across 10 states has led to nothing that could overturn the election.
[1] https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/docu...
[2] https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/politics/elections/20...
[3] https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p86...
That’s not actually true. While some may have been dismissed based on insufficiency of presented or proffered evidence to support the legal claim, most were either voluntarily dismissed or dismissed for legal threshold issues (failure to state a claim, lack of standing, unreasonable delay in filing [laches]) which come before considering evidence.
What do you think they've been doing in the courts for the past month?
Trumps own Justice department wouldn't even pursue it.
If you look at the spikes in vote counts on some of these graphs, its more than enough to warrant a hearing .
Now the people have lost faith in the courts.
The complete lack of evidence and lack of anything but witness testimony was the first stage - as soon as any witness was interviewed it became immediately clear that there was in fact, no evidence at all.
Repeating this "things were dismissed out of hand" meme is true only in the sense that if a man came into court and said he was king of america he would also be given very little space to waste the courts time.
Since this is probably going to get flagged, like my previous post. This is what was entered into the record, during the objections yesterday in the joint session of congress. I stayed up watching it. So I'm not making this up.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pennsylvania-205000-votes/
“a few counties have not completed uploading their vote histories,”
And the other explanation is a hypothetical explanation of over or under votes. No proof that this was actually the case here.
How is the statement from the Pennsylvania Department of State admitting that Rep. Ryan's claim is correct?
The problem is that there's an implicit assumption in Rep. Ryan's claim that the SURE numbers are complete and represent the actual number of voters who actually voted. If a few counties have not completed uploading their vote histories, then that implicit assumption is invalidated, thereby invalidating the rest of the claim.
> And the other explanation is a hypothetical explanation of over or under votes. No proof that this was actually the case here.
The burden of proof is on Rep. Ryan to show that the over- and under-voting in 2020 is nefarious/fraudulent/malicious. Merely saying that over- and under-voting exists is not sufficient to show something is wrong; one also needs to show that such a thing does not happen in "clean" elections. Pennsylvania is merely pointing out the gap in the analysis here.
Edit: Added missing word
Why wouldn't you expect the count of votes entered into a system to be off before everything is entered into the system? Of course it's off.
Hell, why not just launch this claim on Nov 10 and say that the count is off by millions of votes? It's a braindead argument.
Although I have a feeling you'd rather wave your hand and say "Aah, Snopes, what do they know, and it's not concrete enough!".
The problem with the "1000's of people with sworn affidavits of violations" is, it seems their understanding what a violation is, are based on misinterpreting (deliberately or not) and wishful thinking. I've seen the videos of people commenting "Look at this security camera footage, they're taking boxes, and those boxes have fake ballots!", without even showing how he came to those conclusions. I could just as easily show a footage of a man walking into a building and claim it's a building where voting machines are stored and he's a hacker with a USB stick that will hack all the machines. I hope all the affidavits were looked at carefully before being dismissed, but it seems like the courts would have work until the sun burns out if it wants to look at every theory.
Just not true. In fact, there were nearly 7 million votes cast. The total number of registered voters in 2020 was just over 9 million[0].
[0] https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-afs:Content:9887147...
Not sure why the number of affidavits is so important, and how many of these affidavits were from that form people were filling out a form on a website?
If you look at the spikes in vote counts on some of these graphs, its more than enough to warrant a hearing.
Assuming that "spikes" in a graph are proof of anything wrong at all, if the answer is "That's where a bunch of votes were added to the count." then what is the followup from there that necessitates a hearing of any kind?
If would be more like dismissing UFO evidence from 1000 sworn affidavits from people that work at the Pentagon.
I'd imagine more than 1000 of them believe the earth is flat and/or was created 10,000 years ago.
And don't take my word for it either. Look at the court documents yourself, then make up your own mind.
https://electioncases.osu.edu/2021/01/summary-of-post-electi...
I'm sure that many folks on both sides believed what they were told. However, one group was told something approximating the truth and the other were told bald-faced lies.
[0] https://electioncases.osu.edu/2021/01/summary-of-post-electi...
Trump directed a mob yesterday to storm our Capitol and it sounds like you're being sarcastic about him threatening our democracy. What does he need to do? Burn it down and hang the Vice President for not exceeding his ceremonial powers like his mob chanted?
The claims of the election should be dismissed by rational people, which is exactly what happened in legislatures and courts across the country led by people of every political position except those that want to tear down our democracy for a demagogue and lie to their constituents about reality.
If that's the position you support, then you have quite a lot of work ahead of you.
The worst Trump did here was say that people should march on Capitol Hill and "cheer on" congresspeople.
I guess people are assuming this was coded language to incite violence, but I'm not buying it
In case anyone was confused about the above (I was), I web searched 'Dirlewanger' and came up with this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oskar_Dirlewanger
Is this considered Doxxing?
My apologies. It was an (apparently ham-fisted) attempt at humor.
Also, I wasn't referring to your comment when I said that, I was referring to mine.
My apologies for any confusion on that point.
Edit: Clarified my intentions WRT my previous comment.