Trump's threats against the 1st Amendment

[leibowde84]

If an investigation revealed concerted intent to influence
an election, the 1st Amendment veil might be pierced.

But, private organizations like SNL are permitted to use their voice to influence elections. Just look at Fox News and MSNBC.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

SNL has never encouraged violence. If anyone got that impression, they would probably be ignorant to the fact it is a satirical show written and performed by comedians. So, I'm not sure that is pertinent here.

It is important that we are all permitted to make fun of, mock, insult, and criticize our elected officials as much as we want. Do you agree?

 

[Shad]

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.

POTUS is still a citizen thus has 1A rights. There must be a clear order involved not merely Trump trolling people on twitter. When something happens to SNL let me know.

At the very best, it was completely inappropriate.

You haven't read much from Trump's twitter account, have you?

And, at a time when division in this country is a critical issue, "mocking the left" is always inappropriate for the president.

Why? Do you think if he started to act like a normal politician it would change anything?

He should be held to a higher standard as the leader of the free world.

Why? The status quo is old. BS pandering while abuse powers behind the scene. At least Trumps ways there is not filter between the BS and abusing power. Think about it. He is like a Bond villain babbling his plans before Bond escapes.

 

[Revoltingest]

But, private organizations like SNL are permitted to use their voice to influence elections. Just look at Fox News and MSNBC.

In years past, I recall government threatening action against
talk radio for the appearance of supporting a candidate.
This could be argued to be an "in kind contribution".

 

[Nakosis]

SNL has never encouraged violence. If anyone got that impression, they would probably be ignorant to the fact it is a satirical show written and performed by comedians. So, I'm not sure that is pertinent here.

It is important that we are all permitted to make fun of, mock, insult, and criticize our elected officials as much as we want. Do you agree?

Sure, I assume our elected officials are permitted the same options.

 

[Shad]

It is important that we are all permitted to make fun of, mock, insult, and criticize our elected officials as much as we want. Do you agree?

Do you extend the same right to citizens that happen to work for government or are they just to be punching bags for the masses?

 

[Nakosis]

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.

Well I can't read Trump's mind, so I see it as Trump using SNL to make fun of the Mueller report. However can't prove you are wrong about it being a veiled threat. However couldn't anyone see this type of mocking as a veiled threat?

I suppose I think the benefit of the doubt needs to be applied unless it can be proven otherwise.

 

[Nakosis]

I got mad when 'free speech' zones were implemented.

For the protestors protection.

I suppose this means law enforcement has admitted they can no longer provide adequate protection in these situations.

 

[leibowde84]

Do you extend the same right to citizens that happen to work for government or are they just to be punching bags for the masses?

If they are on the job in their official capacity, then yes. Trump has said himself that his twitter account is official presidential communications. So, in this instance, he is "on the job in his official capacity".

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Well I can't read Trump's mind, so I see it as Trump using SNL to make fun of the Mueller report. However can't prove you are wrong about it being a veiled threat. However couldn't anyone see this type of mocking as a veiled threat?

I suppose I think the benefit of the doubt needs to be applied unless it can be proven otherwise.

IMO people in power SHOULD be held to a higher standard, since there are those in their sway who take the leader’s word as law.

e.g. — “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest!”. - King Henry II, 1170 AD.

 

[Nakosis]

IMO people in power SHOULD be held to a higher standard, since there are those in their sway who take the leader’s word as law.

e.g. — “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest!”. - King Henry II, 1170 AD.

Ok, but the only standard they are really held to, other than the laws we are all held to, is elections.

Every few years we have the opportunity to vote out those elected officials that don't meet our standards.

There a lot of personal standards I have that Trump doesn't meet. Doesn't keep folks from putting him in office though.

Trump is what he is, I assume that's who folks that voted for him wanted. If he gets reelected, I'll assume folks wanted four more years of the same, without any regard to my personal standards.

 

[Nakosis]

POTUS is still a citizen thus has 1A rights. There must be a clear order involved not merely Trump trolling people on twitter. When something happens to SNL let me know.

Better description/explanation...(your's is)

Trump be trolling. Trolling is what Trump does. SNL trolls Trump. Maybe people don't like our president to be trolling. I think it best to not feed the trolls, let them feed each other.

 

[Shad]

Trump be trolling. Trolling is what Trump does. SNL trolls Trump. Maybe people don't like our president to be trolling. I think it best to not feed the trolls, let them feed each other.

That is his style. I am surprised anyone is shocked by it by now. Heck even Graham is starting to do it. The amount of trolling may decrease but I think twitter use is here to stay. The only change I can see is separating a personal account from the office thus under control of PR.

 

[Shad]

If they are on the job in their official capacity, then yes.

Nope

Trump has said himself that his twitter account is official presidential communications.

Citation.

So, in this instance, he is "on the job in his official capacity".

Nope.

 

[robocop (actually)]

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?

I wasn't thinking thoroughly.

 

[leibowde84]

Nope

Just to make this clear, are you claiming that speech from a government employee, while in their official capacity, is not a government act? If not, when would speech be government speech?

 

[Twilight Hue]

For the protestors protection.

I suppose this means law enforcement has admitted they can no longer provide adequate protection in these situations.

if If one dosent want 'protection',
Does that mean free speech doesn't exist outside the zone?

 

[Nakosis]

if If one dosent want 'protection',
Does that mean free speech doesn't exist outside the zone?

Interesting question. Like like if you attempt to exercise your 1st amendment right in an area not zoned for free speech you could get arrested, detained and charged with trespassing.

I suspect protesting/free speech is not the problem. The problem is protesters can cause a lot of havoc. They can impede events, block traffic, cause injuries, destroy property.

Free speech comes with responsibilities. Abusing that right has caused law enforcement to react accordingly.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Interesting question. Like like if you attempt to exercise your 1st amendment right in an area not zoned for free speech you could get arrested, detained and charged with trespassing.

I suspect protesting/free speech is not the problem. The problem is protesters can cause a lot of havoc. They can impede events, block traffic, cause injuries, destroy property.

Free speech comes with responsibilities. Abusing that right has caused law enforcement to react accordingly.

That sounds pretty convenient.

Considering the entirety of our history without ever needing free speech zones, suddenly out of the blue, issues revolving around free speech seems to be a priority now for some reason. Enough now necessitating the need to corral people with issues and views into designated pens.

 

[Shad]

Just to make this clear, are you claiming that speech from a government employee, while in their official capacity, is not a government act?

We disagree over what is consider "official capacity"

If not, when would speech be government speech?

Something more than Trump's twitter account.