No Kings 2.0

[Kurokage]

Yellilng 'fire' in a crowded movie theater is not 'free speech'.
Inciting violence is also not 'free speech'.
You aren't American.   You don't know the law here.

What is sad is that you are condoning calls to violence 
because it's coming from the left and you are left wing.
And what else is sad is that you are okay with calls to 
violence in the USA because you live thousands of miles away
and don't have to live with the consequences of it.

Here ... I'll educate you ....  

AI GOOGLE ASSIST - Incitement to violence is a crime where a person urges or instigates others to commit violent acts, and the specific law varies by jurisdiction. In the U.S., protected speech that incites violence is limited, particularly under the Brandenberg Test, which states that speech can only be punished if it is directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action.

ALSO -18 U.S. Code § 373 - Solicitation to commit a crime of violence(a)
Whoever, with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against property or against the person of another in violation of the laws of the United States, and under circumstances strongly corroborative of that intent, solicits, commands, induces, or otherwise endeavors to persuade such other person to engage in such conduct, shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section 3571) fined not more than one-half of the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the crime solicited, or both; or if the crime solicited is punishable by life imprisonment or death, shall be imprisoned for not more than twenty years.

AND we have from Georgetown Law - FACT SHEET



So basically it is a crime to say 'make assassination great again' at a rally on a big sign because it induces people to commit felony crimes.   It is NOT protected free speech.

That's a little bit insulting claiming I'm not American so I don't know the law, don't you think??
And you clearly know I'm not left wing either.
You seem to be making a lot of incorrect assumptions, which I find odd??

Thanks for your 'education'?!?!?

 

As I've said, I saw no 'incitement to violence' going on in the videos posted and several million people peacefully showing their government they're not happy.
Did the day end differently to what's been seen??  Were cars set alight, shops looted and people attacked??

Or did several million people walk peacefully as a demonstration and then return to their homes???

[David64]

Back in the 1700's, an British King oversaw a system that put tariffs on commodity items being sold to North Americans, who were concerned that trade tariffs represented a tax on non-represented non-constituents of the taxing authorities, in their parlance they wanted "No taxation without representation". It was a big part of the reasons for the American Revolution.

Apparently, now, your government is re-implementing similar excessively high tariffs on foreign goods for sale to North Americans - the very thing that your revolutionary founding fathers opposed.

Did you have a problem with it when Biden was doing it ?

 

• Targeted approach: 
  The Biden administration has focused on specific sectors, such as a 100% tariff on Chinese electric vehicles, 50% on solar cells, and 25% on steel and aluminum. 
  
• Maintained Trump's tariffs: 
  Biden has largely kept Trump's tariffs in place and has collected more revenue from them than the Trump administration did. 
  
• Domestic industrial policy: 
  Biden's tariffs are part of a broader strategy that includes domestic subsidies and industrial policies to build up American supply chains for sectors like semiconductors and green technology. 
  
• Increased some tariffs: 
  Biden has raised some tariffs, such as a 14.5% tariff on Canadian lumber, which had been a long-standing point of contention. 
  

[chr0naut]

Thats a cool story.

Who is stopping the government from opening back up again?

According to the Constitution, Congress has the sole budgetary and excise authority in the country, but their budget can be blocked by the President, or the courts, if it is not agreed upon.

Currently, the President is setting budgets and excise externally to Congress, and at odds to the Constitutionally mandated process.

Because the Congressional budget allocates the public purse differently that the President plans, he is blocking supply - i.e. not allowing the government to pay its operational bills - and so the government is forced to shutdown because it cannot continue to operate on nothing.

Last time the he shut down the government, it was about the money for his desert garden wall. Despite getting his own way and budgetary allocation, look at how much of the wall is finished after 9 years work (hint. there has only been 80 miles of new construction where no barriers existed before).

I'd be quite upset if someone was putting up the prices of all the stuff that people used to buy, and at the same time forced you to pay for things you can never have or use.

[David64]

Funny how things change?

Only recently some members were criticising the British police for questioning someone for posting remarks on twitter claiming an infringement of his rights and freedom of speech. Now suddenly things are very different because it's a perceived 'threat' to someone who's already dead?? I also know that most moaning here have claimed "freedom of speech" when someone is sacked from a job after voicing opinions about a social issue in the work place.    You can't have it both ways.

Trying to incite violent attacks is already covered by laws in most western countries, and 7 million people (mostly) peacefully showing their distain for a government is democracy in action. This would be a wake up call to any politician in power to listen to their people.

That wasn't a threat, just in very poor taste. Everyone still has Freedom of Speech, but as I pointed out, you are never free from the consequences. If the school board fires her, that's hers own doing. Teachers have a huge influence on how kids think. Would you like to have someone like her teaching Your kids ?
I wouldn't, no more than having a Nazi sympathizer or racist teaching mine.

That's why I say Let Them Speak. Evil will always expose itself.

[FlyersFan]

That's a little bit insulting claiming I'm not American so I don't know the law, don't you think??

No.  It's accurate.
You are saying that the inciting to violence is just free speech.
That is incorrect.
I provided the information showing that it is against the law.
Obviously you didn't know that.

[chr0naut]

Did you have a problem with it when Biden was doing it ?

Well, I like the idea of free trade. Tariffs always seemed to me to be a way to force people to buy inferior and uncompetitive goods.

Have you asked yourself, who pays the extra money when a tariff is put on the cost of goods?

[David64]

 Despite getting his own way and budgetary allocation, look at how much of the wall is finished after 9 years work (hint. there has only been 80 miles of new construction where no barriers existed before).

9 years ? Biden stopped construction on his first day in office and then tried to sell off the materials till he was stopped by the courts.

80 MILES of fence. Not 80 feet or 8000 feet, 80 MILES.
I'm not sure how much you know about heavy construction, but 80 miles of fencing is impressive when you consider the conditions they're working in.

[David64]

Well, I like the idea of free trade. Tariffs always seemed to me to be a way to force people to buy inferior and uncompetitive goods.

Have you asked yourself, who pays the extra money when a tariff is put on the cost of goods?

We do....and we have been for years, even under Democrat leaders. There's nothing new here, so making it sound like Trump is the first to do it is a bit disingenuous don't ya think ?

[UltraBudgie]

So basically it is a crime to say 'make assassination great again' at a rally on a big sign because it induces people to commit felony crimes.   It is NOT protected free speech.

Sigh, you quote AI citing the Brandenberg test, but you don't apply it yourself. That example would be protected speech, and not a crime. For example, look at Hess v. Indiana:

The Supreme Court in Hess v. Indiana (1973) applied the Brandenburg test to a case in which Gregory Hess, an Indiana University protester, said, “We’ll take the fucking street later (or again)." The Supreme Court ruled that Hess’s profanity was protected under the Brandenburg test, as the speech “amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time.” The Court held that “since there was no evidence, or rational inference from the import of the language, that his words were intended to produce, and likely to produce, imminent disorder, those words could not be punished by the State on the ground that they had a ‘tendency to lead to violence.’”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test

A determination of imminence requires specificity.

[Kurokage]

That wasn't a threat, just in very poor taste. Everyone still has Freedom of Speech, but as I pointed out, you are never free from the consequences. If the school board fires her, that's hers own doing. Teachers have a huge influence on how kids think. Would you like to have someone like her teaching Your kids ?
I wouldn't, no more than having a Nazi sympathizer or racist teaching mine.

That's why I say Let Them Speak. Evil will always expose itself.

By your own comments, you say it was just in poor taste and wasn't any sort of threat or incitement. So isn't 'bad taste' maybe just an opinion you don't agree with??