Trump's threats against the 1st Amendment

[leibowde84]

I've formulated one with a little more detail than so far presented.
Certainly, I'm not so brilliant that other cannot discover the same.

What is your argument that SNL could be considered political commentary rather than satire? Because, even if it is both, it is protected by the 1st Amendment.

 

[Nakosis]

Thank you!!


....but alas, they can’t be bothered

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...

The question was, "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? "

The point was that congress enacts laws that provide legal avenues to challenge free speech. For whatever reason, the reason is NOT important, a past president try to limit political speech. Narrowly, Obama lost. I'd assume Trump has the same right as any citizen of the US to legally go after a corporation. Winning is a different matter.

Obama Criminalize Free Speech? - FactCheck.org

Not sure the relevance. I didn't say Obama criminalized free speech. In fact I'm pretty sure I mentioned he lost. Anyone has the right to "go after" a corporation or individual legally. It's the way our legal system works.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

Trump is a government actor. When he makes public threats as president about using the FCC to punish satirical shows like SNL, he is doing so as a government actor. That is not merely expressing an opinion ... it is a threat to use his power as president to influence the FCC to shut down a show he doesn't like. You don't have a problem with that?

I agree, if Trump merely expressed that he did not think SNL was fair or funny, that would obviously be fine. But, that is not what we are talking about.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

Seeing how this argument was unsuccessful, and Obama's opinions and/or arguments don't hold any precedent whatsoever, why is this relevant to this conversation?

 

[leibowde84]

Which comments of Trump are your referring to?

"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,' ” he tweeted Sunday. "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!" Donald J. Trump on Twitter

The problem is that, as Trump has stated himself, his tweets are official presidential communication. As president, he is a governmental actor, restricted by the 1st Amendment in ways that ordinary citizens are not. So, his use of his power as president to influence the FCC to open an investigation on SNL and other satirical shows is a violation of the first amendment ... or at least that is how I see it. What are your thoughts?

 

[Nakosis]

Seeing how this argument was unsuccessful, and Obama's opinions and/or arguments don't hold any precedent whatsoever, why is this relevant to this conversation?

My point is only that Trump can "go after" an corporation, since we have a legal mechanism that provides for this. How would you expect Trump to go after a corporation except in court? Whatever action he did take would still end up in court. The constitution is what it is. However we have an entire legal system which allows us to harass folks/corporations.

Maybe you meant the idea the Trump would somehow break laws to attack corporations, however I don't see that as even possible. We have a pretty robust legal system which deals with this.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

I would say that first, twitter is not a government actor in any way. They are protected by the 1st Amendment against government censorship. They are, however, free to censor whomever they want, as they are a private entity. Also, when it comes to speech from actual tweets, twitter, itself, is not speaking. They are merely providing the platform. As you alluded to, it would be like going after verizon because you found a specific episode of a specific show offensive on comedy central.

 

[leibowde84]

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

lol ... yeah, that would be a far stretch, even for trump and his disciples.

 

[leibowde84]

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

It is protected by the 1st Amendment, as it should be.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

So, you think that all SCOTUS precedent concerning the 1st Amendment should be abandoned. All judgments based on that precedent should be reversed. And, we should go back to the understanding of men with far less education and understanding in social science (and every other subject under the sun) who wrote their opinions more than 230 years ago and did not have any experience with the issues we are discussing currently due to their lack of technology (among other things)? Do I have that right?

 

[leibowde84]

Poor snowflake needs a safe space

I know ... Trump is such a snowflake. I have never witnessed an adult with thinner skin.

 

[leibowde84]

My point is only that Trump can "go after" an corporation, since we have a legal mechanism that provides for this. How would you expect Trump to go after a corporation except in court? Whatever action he did take would still end up in court. The constitution is what it is. However we have an entire legal system which allows us to harass folks/corporations.

Maybe you meant the idea the Trump would somehow break laws to attack corporations, however I don't see that as even possible. We have a pretty robust legal system which deals with this.

Why would he make the threat to influence the FCC to investigate SNL? Are you just ignoring that because you think Trump is so ignorant that he doesn't understand it won't work?

 

[Shad]

"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,' ” he tweeted Sunday. "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!" Donald J. Trump on Twitter

He was mocking the left.

The problem is that, as Trump has stated himself, his tweets are official presidential communication.

The DoJ, Press Secretary and PRA did for some of the posts.

As president, he is a governmental actor, restricted by the 1st Amendment in ways that ordinary citizens are not.

Based on what exactly?

So, his use of his power as president to influence the FCC to open an investigation on SNL and other satirical shows is a violation of the first amendment ... or at least that is how I see it. What are your thoughts?

Key word in his tweet was "Should". If he wanted an investigation he could order it as the FCC is under his control. At best it could be seen as "feeling out" or sampling

 

[Nakosis]

Why would he make the threat to influence the FCC to investigate SNL? Are you just ignoring that because you think Trump is so ignorant that he doesn't understand it won't work?

Are you referring to this?

"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"

I didn't see this as a real threat. More taking a poke at the russian Collusion Investigation. Some reason to see this as a serious threat?

 

[Shad]

Are you referring to this?

"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"

Yes as per post 65

 

[Revoltingest]

What is your argument that SNL could be considered political commentary rather than satire? Because, even if it is both, it is protected by the 1st Amendment.

I thought I'd pointed out a vulnerability before.
No?
If an investigation revealed concerted intent to influence
an election, the 1st Amendment veil might be pierced.

Note:
I don't say this happened or is even likely.

 

[Nakosis]

It is protected by the 1st Amendment, as it should be.

I agree but, couldn't free speech become a matter of harassment?

Free speech comes with responsibilities not to abuse the right IMO. We shouldn't use free speech to cause riots or encourage folks to break the law. If we do, we can be held accountable.

Still I doubt SNL gets close to that level. What I suspect Trump was doing was to use his platform as POTUS to encourage his supporters to stop watching SNL.

Think SNL should go after the President?

In this case, no Trump shouldn't have the power to influence the FCC to go after anyone for political reasons. As long as they are not directly encouraging violence in some form.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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 got mad when 'free speech' zones were implemented.

 

[leibowde84]

Based on what exactly?

The 1st Amendment protects citizens from the government. Government actors are those people that act on behalf of the government. Thus, the 1st Amendment protects citizens (and private organizations, TV shows, etc.) from certain actions taken by government actors aimed to quiet their voices. The President is the head of the executive branch. As you said, he controls the FCC. So, by definition, Trump is a government actor that the 1st Amendment protects SNL from.

Key word in his tweet was "Should". If he wanted an investigation he could order it as the FCC is under his control. At best it could be seen as "feeling out" or sampling

At the very best, it was completely inappropriate. And, at a time when division in this country is a critical issue, "mocking the left" is always inappropriate for the president. He should be held to a higher standard as the leader of the free world.

 

[leibowde84]

Are you referring to this?

"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"

I didn't see this as a real threat. More taking a poke at the russian Collusion Investigation. Some reason to see this as a serious threat?

He is trying to scare SNL, as he basically controls the FCC. In other words, you'd better do as I say or I will unleash the FCC on you. The remainder is merely Trump being a snowflake.