Trump's threats against the 1st Amendment

[Nakosis]

I'll take a shot....
If SNL seeks to influence the upcoming election, their 'commentary' could be construed as an in-kind contribution.
Ref....
Making in-kind contributions to candidates - FEC.gov
This law has been used against political commentators before.

Obama attempted to ban political books based on who funded the book.

The real culprit here is McCain-Feingold, which established the principle that the government could suppress speech based on extrinsic conditions such as how it was paid for. The First Amendment says Congress will make no law “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” There is no proviso in the First Amendment saying that Congress can abridge freedom of speech in a manner that is not content-based. McCain-Feingold created that proviso, and the Supreme Court accepted it in the 5-4 McConnell v. FEC decision.

Obama Administration argues for book banning power

Didn't work, but I suppose it provides an avenue for a legal argument to ban political speech as a provision of campaign finance reform.

So it's not that Trump has the power, anyone has the power to use this as a legal argument to ban certain political speech.

 

[Revoltingest]

Obama attempted to ban political books based on who funded the book.

The real culprit here is McCain-Feingold, which established the principle that the government could suppress speech based on extrinsic conditions such as how it was paid for. The First Amendment says Congress will make no law “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” There is no proviso in the First Amendment saying that Congress can abridge freedom of speech in a manner that is not content-based. McCain-Feingold created that proviso, and the Supreme Court accepted it in the 5-4 McConnell v. FEC decision.

Obama Administration argues for book banning power

Didn't work, but I suppose it provides an avenue for a legal argument to ban political speech as a provision of campaign finance reform.

So it's not that Trump has the power, anyone has the power to use this as a legal argument to ban certain political speech.

Frubalworthy.
Someone is awake today.
And there could be more arguments.

Others need to recognize that to understand even a less than correct argument is illuminating.
This is in part because such arguments sometimes become law.
Know the risks.

 

[Shad]

Trump has recently threatened our most sacred constitutionally protected right, our freedom of expression, by threatening private companies like Twitter and satirical television shows like Saturday Night Live by threatening legal action against them.

The 1st Amendment protects organizations like Twitter and shows like SNL from government censorship. It does not protect individual users on Twitter from censorship from Twitter itself. Twitter, as it is not a government actor in any way, is free to censor whatever they want.

Can anyone provide an argument as to why Trump should have the power to ignore the constitution to go after those who mock and criticize him? Please refrain from expressing your subjective opinions about these outlets, as they are not pertinent to this conversation. In other words, just because you don't think SNL is funny or classy doesn't provide evidence for supporting Trump's threats.

Which comments of Trump are your referring to?

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Fascinating.

So much volume.
So little imagination.

Oh, I see. You don’t give a carp’s crap about facts, the law, or the constitution. You just want to turn a serious discussion into silly-time fun.

 

[Mister Emu]

I am, of course, not supportive of ignoring the constitution.

If a media platform wants to inject themselves into the political discourse and decide what sort of politics are acceptable, then I am in favor of removing their public forum protections.

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh, I see.

You don't.
You're confusing my soliciting broader thinking with advocacy for suppression of speech.

There are more facts than presented.
Arguments shouldn't be based upon culling supporting ones, but ignoring the others.

 

[Father Heathen]

It's funny how many conservatives loudly and incessantly boast of their patriotism, reverence of the constitution, love of freedom, etc. but quickly and quietly drop it like it a hot potato once they discover that things they loathe are also protected by such.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's funny how many conservatives loudly and incessantly boast of their patriotism, reverence of the constitution, love of freedom, etc. but quickly and quietly drop it like it a hot potato once they discover that things they loathe are also protected by such.

What conservative is doing this?

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Trump has recently threatened our most sacred constitutionally protected right, our freedom of expression, by threatening private companies like Twitter and satirical television shows like Saturday Night Live by threatening legal action against them.

The 1st Amendment protects organizations like Twitter and shows like SNL from government censorship. It does not protect individual users on Twitter from censorship from Twitter itself. Twitter, as it is not a government actor in any way, is free to censor whatever they want.

Can anyone provide an argument as to why Trump should have the power to ignore the constitution to go after those who mock and criticize him? Please refrain from expressing your subjective opinions about these outlets, as they are not pertinent to this conversation. In other words, just because you don't think SNL is funny or classy doesn't provide evidence for supporting Trump's threats.

No president can ignore the constitution without reprisal. Nor can he or she ignore the law.
I understand the SCUTOS rulings to protect satire/comedy/parodies/etc. But I’m curious about social media.

Please allow an anology, and see if you agree. In the case of Twitter, while not comical and therefore not protected......it is not the Twitter company who is ripping tRump on a daily basis. Suing to silence Twitter would be like suing the editorial page of a newspaper because everyone and their uncle is writting in to diss (even to the point of libel/slander) the politician. Is the company legally required to check each private writer’s opinion for factuality? Libel/Slander is NOT protected by the constitution or law. While most of the bad things said about tRump are true/factual, there is plenty that is probably not, and a small percentage that really ins’t true. I know. But it happens.

Currently Facebook, Twitter, etc....are being shamed into finding ways to block posters’ propaganda and other lies (following the SM companies’ horrible guilt in helping to get tRump elected via those same posters). But can they be ordered to block the liars? Not that they are having much luck either way.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

You don't.
You're confusing my soliciting broader thinking with advocacy for suppression of speech.

There are more facts than presented.
Arguments shouldn't be based upon culling supporting ones, but ignoring the others.

Well, if you have this genius set of facts that should be aired for people to consider while attempting to provide “an argument as to why Trump should have the power to ignore the constitution to go after those who mock and criticize him? ”.....then by all means, go ahead.


P.S. - “culling” is killing off a group. So if I cull off the supporting arguements, then I’m destroying evidence that supports me.
Glad to see you’re awake.

 

[Father Heathen]

decide what sort of politics are acceptable.

This is how you interpret the lampooning of a president's oafish behavior?

 

[Father Heathen]

What conservative is doing this?

Those who are doing mental gymnastics to defend Trump's desire to censor satirical meanies.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, if you have this genius set of.....

I have many things.
"Genius" precedes none.

What I'm after....
Entertain other perspectives.
Roll conflicting views around your mind.
You'll understand more this way than obsessing over being right.

 

[Revoltingest]

Those who are doing mental gymnastics to defend Trump's desire to censor satirical meanies.

Who has done it?
I haven't seen it, so I wondered whom you're criticizing for having said what.

 

[wandering peacefully]

Trump has recently threatened our most sacred constitutionally protected right, our freedom of expression, by threatening private companies like Twitter and satirical television shows like Saturday Night Live by threatening legal action against them.

The 1st Amendment protects organizations like Twitter and shows like SNL from government censorship. It does not protect individual users on Twitter from censorship from Twitter itself. Twitter, as it is not a government actor in any way, is free to censor whatever they want.

Can anyone provide an argument as to why Trump should have the power to ignore the constitution to go after those who mock and criticize him? Please refrain from expressing your subjective opinions about these outlets, as they are not pertinent to this conversation. In other words, just because you don't think SNL is funny or classy doesn't provide evidence for supporting Trump's threats.

It's a matter of national security? They use that excuse for everything else they do to take away our freedoms.

 

[Nakosis]

Trump has recently threatened our most sacred constitutionally protected right, our freedom of expression, by threatening private companies like Twitter and satirical television shows like Saturday Night Live by threatening legal action against them.

The 1st Amendment protects organizations like Twitter and shows like SNL from government censorship. It does not protect individual users on Twitter from censorship from Twitter itself. Twitter, as it is not a government actor in any way, is free to censor whatever they want.

Can anyone provide an argument as to why Trump should have the power to ignore the constitution to go after those who mock and criticize him? Please refrain from expressing your subjective opinions about these outlets, as they are not pertinent to this conversation. In other words, just because you don't think SNL is funny or classy doesn't provide evidence for supporting Trump's threats.

Should anti semitic, anti islamic, anti black speech be restricted? If so when does that line get crossed?

 

[Stanyon]

It was a tweet and a joke apparently, it doesn't seem a sincere attempt at actively attempting to undermine the Constitution:

“It’s truly incredible that shows like Saturday Night Live, not funny/no talent, can spend all of their time knocking the same person (me), over & over, without so much of a mention of ‘the other side,'” the president wrote. “Like an advertisement without consequences. Same with Late Night Shows. Should Federal Election Commission and/or FCC look into this? There must be Collusion with the Democrats and, of course, Russia! Such one sided media coverage, most of it Fake News. Hard to believe I won and am winning. Approval Rating 52%, 93% with Republicans. Sorry! #MAGA”

 

[Revoltingest]

It was a tweet and a joke apparently, it doesn't seem a sincere attempt at actively attempting to undermine the Constitution:

“It’s truly incredible that shows like Saturday Night Live, not funny/no talent, can spend all of their time knocking the same person (me), over & over, without so much of a mention of ‘the other side,'” the president wrote. “Like an advertisement without consequences. Same with Late Night Shows. Should Federal Election Commission and/or FCC look into this? There must be Collusion with the Democrats and, of course, Russia! Such one sided media coverage, most of it Fake News. Hard to believe I won and am winning. Approval Rating 52%, 93% with Republicans. Sorry! #MAGA”

Dang...people are taking that seriously?

 

[joe1776]

It's a matter of national security? They use that excuse for everything else they do to take away our freedoms.

Who's the they who want to take away our freedom?

 

[Curious George]

Obama attempted to ban political books based on who funded the book.

The real culprit here is McCain-Feingold, which established the principle that the government could suppress speech based on extrinsic conditions such as how it was paid for. The First Amendment says Congress will make no law “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” There is no proviso in the First Amendment saying that Congress can abridge freedom of speech in a manner that is not content-based. McCain-Feingold created that proviso, and the Supreme Court accepted it in the 5-4 McConnell v. FEC decision.

Obama Administration argues for book banning power

Didn't work, but I suppose it provides an avenue for a legal argument to ban political speech as a provision of campaign finance reform.

So it's not that Trump has the power, anyone has the power to use this as a legal argument to ban certain political speech.

I wpuld suggest that you need to reread McConnel and Citizens United.