Trump's threats against the 1st Amendment

[Curious George]

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.

I am very disappointed in ypur "imagination" if this is at what you were driving.

 

[Audie]

I don't see how Trump is actually threatening our constitution. He seems to be expressing an opinion which he has a constitutionally protected right to do so.

I doubt anyone thinks a president should have the right to ignore the constitution.

SCOTUS usually figures these things
out when need be.

If the left is super concerned about inroads
on the amendments they could cease
trying to erode the second.

Like I care, but still.

 

[Audie]

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.

Goodness, people in America!

 

[Nakosis]

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

Not likely, 270 some pages, and since I'm not a lawyer, it'd probably limit my ability to understand much of it anyway. Campaign finance seems a quagmire

My point is that the Obama administration obviously thought this law provided a path to limit political speech. I suspect he had a number of experienced lawyers supporting his position. Laws created by congress provide a legal means to attack free speech in the attempt to limit the ability of money to influence elections. Like some political group putting a lot of money into releasing a book very negative about a president in an attempt to influence an election. There's a lot of ways to influence an election without directly contributing to a politician's campaign.

What if a lot of republicans or maybe one rich one decided to pay artists to create an effigy of the democratic candidate or a songwriter to blast the airwaves with a negative song, or a network to put on satires against a particular candidate? Should that all be protected under free speech?

 

[Quetzal]

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.

Question, how does one determine if their content falls into this category? Sure, it seems obvious to some and maybe not to others. Seems a bit abstract to me, but I don't know much at all about it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Question, how does one determine if their content falls into this category? Sure, it seems obvious to some and maybe not to others. Seems a bit abstract to me, but I don't know much at all about it.

Lo!
Someone asked the right question.
I'd say that there'd have to be internal (SNL & management) communication indicating
intent to sway an election. This could be viewed as an in-kind contribution.

Note to all of you itch'n to leap to the wrong conclusion....
I'm not saying this is happening.
But the OP asked how.

 

[Quetzal]

Note to all of you itch'n to leap to the wrong conclusion....

I am selling pitchforks and torches, don't you take this away from me! I need this!

 

[Revoltingest]

I am selling pitchforks and torches, don't you take this away from me! I need this!

Don't worry....they don't read carefully.

 

[Quetzal]

Don't worry....they don't read carefully.

Oh thank goodness, I had to be a disclaimer about my return policy (legality, something something). I hope they miss it.

 

[Curious George]

Not likely, 270 some pages, and since I'm not a lawyer, it'd probably limit my ability to understand much of it anyway. Campaign finance seems a quagmire

My point is that the Obama administration obviously thought this law provided a path to limit political speech. I suspect he had a number of experienced lawyers supporting his position. Laws created by congress provide a legal means to attack free speech in the attempt to limit the ability of money to influence elections. Like some political group putting a lot of money into releasing a book very negative about a president in an attempt to influence an election. There's a lot of ways to influence an election without directly contributing to a politician's campaign.

What if a lot of republicans or maybe one rich one decided to pay artists to create an effigy of the democratic candidate or a songwriter to blast the airwaves with a negative song, or a network to put on satires against a particular candidate? Should that all be protected under free speech?

Just go to oyez and listen to the oral arguments for citizens united then.

 

[robocop (actually)]

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.

I can, the federalist papers did not want free speech as we know it today... the founding fathers wanted a lot more control of the media.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

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.

Poor snowflake needs a safe space

 

[sooda]

"President Trump on Wednesday unleashed fresh criticism of John McCain, attacking the late GOP senator from Arizona"

"Trump spent five full minutes jabbing at McCain during an official White House event intended to highlight manufacturing in Ohio. The barbs marked the fourth time in the last five days that Trump has criticized McCain, who died from brain cancer in August."

"I gave him the kind of funeral that he wanted, which as president I had to approve. I don’t care about this, I didn't get a thank you. That's OK," Trump told workers at a tank factory in Lima, Ohio."

"We sent him on the way, but I wasn’t a fan of John McCain."

Trump blasts McCain, bemoans not getting 'thank you' for funeral

This guy is beautiful, he not only insults the parents of dead soldiers, but even dead war heroes eight months after they have died, and continuously, now supposedly because he didn't get a thank you for attending the funeral. (from a dead guy)

Got to love the "I gave him," where the heck does that come from, guess just another Trump fabrication .

Flat out shameful, and the Trumpkins will not tell us Trump is "just defending himself," defending himself from a guy who died nearly a year ago, figure that one out.

Truth be known Trump feels threatened by just the mere image of McCain because he represented everything Trump isn't nor can ever become ..

 

[wandering peacefully]

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

I was specifically thinking of the department of homeland security and more of being molested by tsa every time I fly. It was more tounge in cheek or an attempt at being funny but I am a little worried about this president using that department to try to do what he is trying to do.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

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

Thank you!!


....but alas, they can’t be bothered

Not likely, 270 some pages, and since I'm not a lawyer, it'd probably limit my ability to understand much of it anyway. Campaign finance seems a quagmire

My point is that the Obama administration obviously thought this law provided a path to limit political speech. I suspect he had a number of experienced lawyers supporting his position. Laws created by congress provide a legal means to attack free speech in the attempt to limit the ability of money to influence elections. Like some political group putting a lot of money into releasing a book very negative about a president in an attempt to influence an election. There's a lot of ways to influence an election without directly contributing to a politician's campaign.

What if a lot of republicans or maybe one rich one decided to pay artists to create an effigy of the democratic candidate or a songwriter to blast the airwaves with a negative song, or a network to put on satires against a particular candidate? Should that all be protected under free speech?

It would seem that you bought the Faux Noose propaganda, hook, line & sinker.
That case was in response to the Citizens United that the SCOTUS chained up the USA with a little while earlier.....as @Curious George was trying to point out to you.

Obama was not trying to ban any old books that anyone decided to publish. He was trying to challenge the Citizens United ideals for those big corporations that are controlling the lives of most everybody who lives in America, along with the blatant mistake of thinking that companies are people. And that as people they have free speech, and that since companies don’t actually have a larynx or hands to write books or paint signs, then “speech” for the companeoples (I’m patenting that word ) equals money. And since unlimited speech is a right for all American people and companeoples (who are your equals, but they have more political power and wealth than you peons), then companeoples can spend all the $millions$ they want to in advertising for or against anyone they want to.

Supreme Court Blocks Ban on Corporate Political Spending
and a related piece of propaganda shot down...
Obama Criminalize Free Speech? - FactCheck.org

 

[Revoltingest]

P.S. - “culling” is killing off a group

Oh, really?
the definition of cull
1 to choose; select; pick.
2 to gather the choice things or parts from.
3 to collect; gather; pluck.

 

[Augustus]

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.

How does this work given the partisan nature of significant sectors of the US media?

 

[Revoltingest]

How does this work given the partisan nature of significant sectors of the US media?

Government has taken a largely hands off policy regarding this possible application
of prohibitions against in-kind contributions. There have been threats made.
(I don't recall against whom, but it was a few years ago.)

This is not a power I want gov to have.

 

[Augustus]

Government has taken a largely hands off policy regarding this possible application
of prohibitions against in-kind contributions. There have been threats made.
(I don't recall against whom, but it was a few years ago.)

This is not a power I want gov to have.

So, in theory, the govt could ban certain partisan news, talk radio, etc media channels?

 

[Revoltingest]

So, in theory, the govt could ban certain partisan news, talk radio, etc media channels?

I wouldn't say they could succeed.
But they could be inspired to try.
Ref....
Types of contributions - FEC.gov
There is mischief to be found in what constitutes "advertising".